Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

MANCHESTER CORPORATION (ADVERTISEMENTS) BILL [Lords] (by Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF PENSIONS

British Legion (Deputation)

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Minister of Pensions if the Government have now considered the representations made by the British Legion in their deputation of 27th January; and if he can now inform the House of the result.

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Heathcoat Amory): Yes, Sir. The standard rates of war disablement and widows' pensions were increased last year and I am afraid that I cannot hold out much hope that a further general increase will be found possible at the present time. The Government are keeping the various aspects under continuous review, against the background of our general economic position.

Sir I. Fraser: While thanking my hon. Friend for his advocacy, albeit unsuccessful, may I ask him if he will get authority from the Cabinet to enter into unprejudiced discussions with the British Legion in the hope that we may between us settle this long standing grievance which is so widely felt?

Mr. Amory: I should like to assure my hon. Friend that I require no authority to discuss these matters with the British Legion. I have done so on several occasions, and I am going to see a deputation from the British Legion in

a week or two, when I shall be perfectly prepared to discuss this problem in all its aspects.

Sir I. Fraser: But will the Minister recollect that when he receives a deputation he generally listens very patiently but says very little? Will he not enter into discussions as between man and man, one old soldier and another?

Mr. Amory: When one sees some delegations it is very difficult to get a word in endways. I think my hon. Friend will agree with me that, generally speaking, the attitude he has mentioned is a model attitude on the part of someone receiving a deputation. I have never refused to hear the case that has been put forward, and I shall be very glad to consider any further representations that are made, any new points, anything like that, and I have promised that those representations will be considered by the Government, and I renew that promise whenever any further representations are made.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware of the fact that if he could persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to replace the Income Tax reduction that he made in the Budget, and to give all these pensioners an increased pension out of that money, we on this side would be very happy?

Mr. McKibbin: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Northern Ireland Area Council of the British Legion are bitterly disappointed that the Budget made no proposals for an increase of war pensions as they consider that their claims are just and long over due? I hope the matter will be dealt with as soon as possible.

Mr. Jack Jones: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he ought to convey to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the extreme disappointment felt in this matter, and that he ought to convey to him our sentiment towards the fact that while it was found possible to give to those who have taken plenty he found it impossible to give to those who have given practically their all?

Mr. Amory: I do not think anybody can be more disappointed than the Government are that it is not possible in present circumstances, in the Government's opinion, to give a further increase


of pensions this year, but my right hon. Friend will, no doubt, read what hon. Gentlemen have said.

Mr. Shinwell: If the Government's failure to respond to what is the overwhelming and almost unanimous opinion of hon. Members is due to a lack of finance, is it not possible for them to reconsider the Budget position?

Mr. Amory: I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that last year, at a moment of particular financial difficulty, and at the height of the financial and economic crisis, the Government did find it possible to make a bigger single increase in war pensions than, I think, had ever been made all at once before.

Parents' Need Pensions

Brigadier Peto: asked the Minister of Pensions whether the review of parents' need pensions has been completed; and whether he will now make a statement.

Mr. Amory: The review is virtually completed. Of about 52,000 pensions in payment, increases have been made in 16,650 cases. The amounts of the increases average about £13 15s. per year in the case of parents of officers and about 3s. 7d. per week in that of other ranks. About 700 pensions had to be reduced and about a similar number withdrawn owing to improvements in income which came to light during the course of the review. As the average age of parents of the 1914 War is 82, special arrangements were made for the review and every parent was visited by a welfare officer, who in many cases was able to help in other directions.

Brigadier Peto: Can my right hon. Friend say when was the last review of these parents' needs?

Mr. Amory: From memory, I think it was shortly after the last war.

Basic Rate

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Pensions what would be the estimated additional annual cost to his Department of increasing the basic rate of war pensions paid to disabled war pensioners to 75s. per week, 80s. per week, and 85s. per week, respectivey; and the estimated additional annual cost of increasing such

pensions to the sum of 90s. per week as advocated by the British Legion.

Mr. Amory: The figures are £13,840,000, £17,300,000, £20,760,000 and £24,220,000 respectively.

Mr. Gower: Would the Minister agree that, when compared with the vast figures involved in a modern Budget, some of these figures are not unduly high? Would he see whether something can be done to assist this body of the community to whom all owe so much?

Mr. Amory: I am sure my hon. Friend will realise that there are a number of other kinds of pensions for which the Government are responsible and that the Government are inevitably faced with an enormous number of calls on our resources at the present time.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the Minister persuade his hon. Friends to put down a Motion censuring the Government for their policy in this connection and voting against the Government in order to show their convictions?

Mr. Amory: I certainly would not presume to give my hon. Friends any advice on what their conduct should be,

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Runnymede Memorial (Railway Fares Rebate)

Mr. D. Griffiths: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will consider making a grant to extend to at least 25 per cent. the 14 per cent. reduction offered by the Railway Executive in the standard return fares for relations attending the unveiling of the Runnymede Memorial.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head): No, Sir.

Mr. Griffiths: Is the Minister aware of the great disatisfaction in the country about this? Is this the best which either his Department or the Chancellor can do to alleviate the distress where parents and widows are unable to make the train journey to pay their last respects at the unveiling to the memory of their lost children?

Mr. Head: The Imperial War Graves Commission approached the Railway Executive and a reduction of 14 per cent.


was given. In addition, there are facilities for cheap fares and day returns. Under the circumstances, after considerable thought, the War Graves Commission did not feel they were justified in asking for an increase over the 14 per cent. rebate which was given.

Mr. Griffiths: May I not appeal to the Minister to make further approaches in this respect and to see if something more cannot be done?

Mr. Head: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that these matters arise very frequently. If a rebate as high as suggested were to be given in such a large number of cases, it would be asking a great deal of the Railway Executive.

Mr. Manuel: Does not the Minister think it completely wrong to rest the basis of his case on an appeal to the Railway Executive to do something instead of standing on his own feet and, through his own Department, giving the necessary relief?

Mr. Head: I am prepared to try to stand on my own feet in these matters, but it is the Railway Executive who have to give the reduction unless some direct subsidy is given, which is not contemplated at the moment. I would point out that for this ceremony in most cases the day return fare gives a reduction well in excess of 14 per cent.

Troops, Kenya (Wives and Families)

Mr. Remnant: asked the Secretary of State for War how many United Kingdom soldiers now serving in Kenya have their wives and families also in that Colony.

Mr. Head: The number is 468.

Mr. Remnant: Can my right hon. Friend say how many of these wives and families have been brought to Kenya since the start of the Mau Mau activities? What opportunity has been given to them of repatriation to this country?

Mr. Head: When the Lancashire Fusiliers moved from the Canal Zone to Kenya their wives went with them. I am not aware of any large number who have asked to come back to this country. I am sure that the wives and families are carefully looked after in Kenya.

Territorial Army Training (Liability)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for War what categories of men are exempt from Territorial Army training following their whole-time service under the National Service Act for occupational reasons.

Mr. Head: None are legally exempted, but it is impracticable to train men serving in the Merchant Navy or as lighthouse keepers, and those preparing to enter the Church are not called for training.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for War how many underground mineworkers, who were called up whilst otherwise employed, are at present under a statutory obligation to do training in the Territorial Army; and if, in view of the general exemption of mineworkers from National Service and the unavailability of these men to the Army in wartime, he will bring forward amending legislation to exempt them from Territorial Army service.

Mr. Head: It is not possible to give the figure asked for in the first part of the Question without a special and laborious inquiry, but it is probably not large. Although these men could be excused Territorial Army training without amending legislation, we cannot assume that men who have become trained soldiers will not be available to the Army in the event of war.

Mr. Swingler: In view of the general exemption of underground mineworkers from call-up because of the crucial importance and arduous character of their work, and because they would not be available to the Army in any circumstances, does not the Minister agree that those circumstances also apply to this category of men? Is it not clear that they would not be available to the Army in any circumstances as long as they are underground mineworkers, and is it not therefore unnecessarily irksome and wasteful to call them up for training with the T.A.?

Mr. Head: These men were not engaged in this type of work at the time of call-up. They went into it afterwards. A great deal of thought has been given


to this question of exemption from part-time training. If we start a differentiation between various types of job we can get into very great difficulties. I am satisfied that, by and large, the present policy is a wise one.

Mr. Fernyhough: Can the Minister say what would happen to an underground worker who said, "I am going to have the same exemption as everybody else and I am not going to do my annual training"? Would his Department prosecute in that case and, if they did and the man went to prison, who would get the coal which we so badly need?

Mr. Head: I think the hon. Gentleman is under some misapprehension. These are men who have done two years' full-time service when they were not in the mines and who entered the mines subsequently. They are in a different category from those who are exempt. As far as exemption from part-time service is concerned, it may well be that these men may subsequently leave that form of employment. This regulation has been adhered to under some difficulty for some time, and, quite frankly, I believe this is the right policy to pursue.

Senior Officers (Personal Servants)

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Secretary of State for War how many colonels of regiments receive personal services from one or more soldiers in the regiment concerned; and whether he will take steps to bring this practice to an end.

Mr. Head: One, Sir. Steps have been taken.

Repatriated Prisoners (Coronation Seats)

Brigadier Clarke: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will allot free Coronation seats to all wounded British prisoners returned from Korea, provided that they are fit enough to travel.

Mr. Head: I am arranging for a number of free seats to be allotted to men who are now in military hospitals in this country as a result of wounds received on active service: this allocation will include prisoners of war returned from Korea.

Brigadier Clarke: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate what great pleasure it

will give to these ex-prisoners to know that they will each get a free Coronation seat?

Trooping the Colour

Major Anstruther-Gray: asked the Secretary of State for War how many seats will be available to the public for the ceremony of Trooping the Colour; whether he will give an estimate of the unsatisfied demand for these tickets; and what plans are being considered to increase the accommodation erected for this annual occasion.

Mr. Head: About 1,000 places are available to the general public. Applications are at present about double this number, but it is often possible to give tickets for the Final Rehearsal to many of those whose applications cannot be met. An additional stand, added last year, will again be put up this year. To put up more stands is impracticable if the ceremony is to be held on the Horse Guards Parade. To hold it elsewhere would destroy the whole character and setting of the ceremony.

Major Anstruther-Gray: May I ask my right hon. Friend not to be content with this present state of affairs in which so many are disappointed but to look at the matter again and to invite some of the many contractors who are putting up stands throughout London at the moment to put forward their suggestions, which might be followed in future years?

Mr. Head: I think, in general, the principle of these stands is the same. If we put up bigger and higher stands they stretch further into the parade ground. This has been investigated very carefully. I do not think there is ever a chance of sufficient stands to accommodate all those who would like to see the ceremony.

Personal Case

Mr. Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, owing to the hardship involved, he will reconsider the case of Private Osell, 114, Dial Lane, West Bromwich, who has applied for release from National Service.

Mr. Head: I have carefully reconsidered this case but I can find no grounds for reversing the decision given in my letter of 31st March to the right hon. Member.

Mr. Dugdale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this man's father died some two months ago, leaving a daughter of 16 and four boys—one aged 11, one 14 and twins of nine; and that one of the boys is seriously ill in hospital? If this is not a compassionate case, will he tell me what is?

Mr. Head: As I understand it, this case falls under two heads—firstly and mainly financial, and secondly, the illness of one brother, which I think is not likely to be prolonged. As far as finance is concerned, there has been no application for a National Service grant nor does Private Osell make any allotment to his mother. As far as the illness is concerned, I am told that his brother is likely to recover and that it is not an incurable illness. We cannot grant compassionate leave from National Service because of widowhood per se.

Mr. Dugdale: I fully realise all the difficulties, but does not the right hon. Gentleman think it would be of some help to this woman to have her son at home during a time of exceedingly great hardship?

Mr. Head: I have looked into the case, but if the right hon. Gentleman would like to talk to me about any special points I am certainly prepared to consider them. From what I have heard about it, I could not grant this man release at the present time.

Home Guard (Uniforms)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for War why only 17 men of the 43rd County of London Battalion of the Home Guard have been fitted with uniforms; and why second-hand shirts are being issued to all ranks.

Mr. Head: Sixty-nine men of this unit were completely fitted out by 22nd April. New clothing issued for the two weeks period of Z Reservist training is cleaned or laundered, inspected and, if satisfactory, issued to units.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the right hon. Gentleman not a little ashamed of his rather shabby treatment of the Home Guard, and is not he aware that it is bad for recruiting and morale if men have to buy their own shirts and other articles of equipment? Is it really his intention

to turn these public spirited volunteers into the position of the old clothes brigade?

Mr. Head: No, that is the very reverse of my intention. The point is that these shirts and other equipment have been issued for two weeks Z Reserve training, and it would seem very wasteful that they should never be used again, if after laundering and repair they are perfectly serviceable. It was found that in this particular case there were some shirts which should not have been issued and they have been withdrawn and replaced by others.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask if this is not a second-hand Government?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Basic Slag

Mr. G. Williams: asked the President of the Board of Trade if, to encourage the use of phosphatic fertilisers, he will remove the 10 per cent. import duty on basic slag.

The Secretary for Overseas Trade (Mr. H. R. Mackeson): The Board of Trade is always ready to consider applications for variations in rates of import duty. In this case an application has recently been submitted, but we have not yet received all the information we require in order to give the matter full consideration.

Mr. Williams: Will the Minister bear in mind that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is subsidising phosphatic fertilisers, and that it seems a pity that an import duty should be put on them at the same time? But if my hon. Friend is going into the matter in the near future, I am satisfied with his answer.

Mr. D. Marshall: May I ask the Minister, in order to get a fair proportion, what is the total home production and what, in 1952, was the total amount of imports?

Mr. Mackeson: Perhaps my hon. Friend would put that question down. The point is that the N.F.U. only wrote to the Government last month. If there is a prima facie case we must, of course, consider the views of all the interested parties.

Light Industries, Easington

Mr. Shinwell: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has now considered what measures are necessary to provide light industries within the Easington rural area.

Mr. Mackeson: I am not yet in a position to add to what my right hon. Friend said in reply to the right hon. Member on 10th of March.

Mr. Shinwell: That is astonishing. I have asked this Question on many occasions and I have got the same reply. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me and the House when he expects to be able to make, if not a favourable reply, at any rate a considered reply?

Mr. Mackeson: The Government are anxious to help the right hon. Gentleman and his constituents in this matter. I will not make the obvious remark about the six years after the war but I assure him that we are going into this matter and we must be careful not to encourage firms which would try to exploit his constituents by giving Government assistance before we have had an opportunity to think the matter over very carefully. We have various alternatives in mind.

Mr. Shinwell: I thank the Minister for that more favourable reply, but he can be assured that my constituents are quite willing to welcome assistance and can look after themselves. There is no fear of exploitation.

Air Commodore Harvey: Will my hon. Friend say what was done for this deserving constituency in the six years after the war when the right hon. Gentleman was in the Cabinet and could have helped himself?

United States Dam Project (British Tender)

Mr. Palmer: asked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of our need for dollars, he will make a further statement on the rejection by the United States authorities of the tender by the English Electric Company for generators and transformers at the Chief Joseph Hydro-Electric Scheme, Washington, in spite of this tender being $932,000 below the nearest United States price quoted.

Mr. Mackeson: I would refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's statement on this matter on 20th April during

the debate on the Budget proposals. Since then the United States Secretary of the Army has stated that it has now been decided to call for new bids on this contract. This decision was also referred to by President Eisenhower at his Press conference on Thursday last. I gather from these statements that the American authorities felt that they could not assess the comparative quality of the British and the American plant. I can only say that in my view every effort should be made in such a case to obtain the necessary information for this purpose from the firms concerned rather than to invite fresh bids and thus, in effect, give another chance to the firms whose prices were too high.

Mr. Palmer: Will the hon. Gentleman say if it has been made plain to the American authorities that not only is this business bad in relation to the Chief Joseph contract, but that this is bound to have a most discouraging effect generally on British manufacturers who are anxious to compete in the American market in the spirit of trade and not aid?

Mr. Mackeson: The decision has now been taken by the United States Administration and I think that we should await developments. I should be very sorry to say anything that would exacerbate feelings in this matter.

Mr. Ellis Smith: The statement made by the Minister seems good so far as it goes, and the House was satisfied with the statement of the President of the Board of Trade last week, but can he say whether since then an assurance has been given to Her Majesty's Government that this policy of discrimination by the Americans will cease against British firms which are quoting?

Mr. Mackeson: My right hon. Friend made a pretty forthright statement on this subject and I should not like to add anything to what I have said.

Mr. Albu: asked the President of the Board of Trade what reply he has received to the representations made by Her Majesty's Government to the United States authorities on the rejection of the tender of the English Electric Company for equipment for the Chief Joseph Dam project.

Mr. Mackeson: The United States Government have informed us of their decision and they will no doubt be letting us have an explanation of the reasons for which they decided to issue new invitations to bid on this contract.

Mr. Albu: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the United States technical, health and safety regulations are frequently used to prevent the passage of goods across the frontiers from one State to another? Does not Her Majesty's Government now think that the time has come for us to use further discriminatory measures in order to make sure that we can render the British economy independent as far as possible of dollars?

Mr. Mackeson: Of course it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government that this country should be independent. I can only say that at the moment we have received notification of the decision but not of the reasons.

Mr. Stokes: Does the hon. Gentleman's first answer mean that the United States have given no official reason for the rejection of the tender, and if they have given official reasons may we know what they are?

Mr. Mackeson: No, Sir. Up to now we have only had the decision officially. In answer to the last question, I was, of course, referring to Press statements and not to official statements.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Does that reply mean that Her Majesty's Government have received no assurance whatsoever from the United States on this matter?

Mr. Mackeson: We have simply been told that it has been decided to invite new tenders.

Mr. Gaitskell: Has any assurance been sought from the United States Government, in the event of the E.E.C. winning the contract on the next round, that there will be no interference from the United States Government in the matter?

Mr. Mackeson: The answer is, No, Sir. We have not at present got so far. We have had the decision but we have not had the official reason for it. That is at present the extent of the reply we have had from the American Administration.

Mr. Gaitskell: Will the Minister reconsider the matter and invite the United States Government to give the assurances to which I have referred?

Mr. Mackeson: I will certainly consider that.

Mr. Fernyhough: In view of the attitude of the American Government to this particular contract, and bearing in mind their attitude in regard to Comet No. 3, is the hon. Gentleman prepared to tell the Americans that unless they make it possible for us to trade on a fair basis we shall have to contract out not only of the Battle Act and in other directions but we shall refuse to acknowledge the right of the Americans to interfere with British shipping trading in any country they please?

Mr. Mackeson: I do not think that supplementary question arises out of the original answer.

Mr. Palmer: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I propose to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Exports to China

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the President of the Board of Trade to state the value of Britain's exports to China for the first quarter of this year; and how it compares with the comparable period for 1952.

Mr. Hamilton: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the increase in United Kingdom exports to China this year as compared with the same period in 1952; to what causes he attributes this increase; and what steps are contemplated to increase it still further.

Mr. Mackeson: Exports to China in the first quarter of this year amounted to £2¼ million compared with £200,000 in the first quarter of 1952 when they were abnormally low even having regard to the greatly reduced level of our trade with China at the present time. The larger figure this year is the result of large purchases notably of textiles and fertilisers, which were made last summer by the Chinese. While I should be glad to see trade with China expand provided that it is confined to goods which will not assist


the Communists in their war against the United Nations forces, it is clear that in present conditions any such expansion depends essentially upon the trade policy of the Chinese Government and that there are no immediate steps which can usefully be taken by Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. McGovern: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether this great development in trade was in any way connected with the visit of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman)?

Mr. Mackeson: I anticipated that supplementary question. I have been unable to trace any evidence of that.

Mr. S. Silverman: In the interests of the accuracy of the record, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the orders to which he referred in his principal answer are precisely those which we had the honour and success to negotiate at the International Economic Conference in Moscow a year ago?

Mr. Mackeson: As I said, while I have taken considerable trouble over this, I cannot substantiate that statement. [Interruption.]

Mr. Ian Harvey: On a point of order. Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, for an hon. Member to call the Minister an ass?

Mr. Speaker: I did not hear that expression.

N.E. Trading Estate Company

Mr. F. Willey: asked the President of the Board of Trade what number of persons, men and women, separately, are employed in North Eastern Trading Estate Company factories.

Mr. Mackeson: On 28th February, 1953, the latest date for which official statistics are available, 18,063 men and boys, 25,590 women and girls, making a total of 43,653 were employed in these factories.

Mr. Willey: Is not the hon. Gentleman disturbed that the factories are still employing fewer people than they did when the present Government took office, as, contrary to this, we expected the factories now to be employing about 15,000 more had they continued the rate of progress made under the previous Government?

Mr. Mackeson: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the statistics he will see that there has been an increase in employment.

Mr. Willey: Will the hon. Gentleman compare his figure with the figure the Parliamentary Secretary gave about 30th September, 1951?

Anglo-Argentinian Trade

Mr. F. Willey: asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made in the discussions following the trade agreement with the Argentine.

Mr. Mackeson: Provision was made in the Supplementary Trade Protocol concluded with Argentina on 31st December last about import quotas for United Kingdom manufactured goods to the value of £3 million, the details to be settled later. Agreement has now been reached and the industries concerned will be informed as quickly as possible of the import quotas which have been secured. The licences are to be issued in two equal instalments, the first £1½ million by the 6th June and the balance by the 30th September.

Mr. Osborne: How much of the £3 million will be spent on textiles?

Mr. Mackeson: The Argentine Government do not intend to buy any textiles from us or any other country after June. However, they have given an assurance that if they buy textiles from anybody we shall have a share.

United States Hosiery Machines

Sir D. Robertson: asked the President of the Board of Trade the total amount of dollars made available during the last six months to British manufacturers of fully-fashioned hose for the purchase of new or secondhand United States machines; and what dollar limit he placed on the purchase of each machine.

Mr. Mackeson: The value of licences issued for imports of fully-fashioned hosiery machinery from the United States during the six months ended 24th April, 1953, was £42,000. Only imports for essential purposes have been licensed; no limit has, however, been placed on the value of individual machines.

Sir D. Robertson: Were not all or most of those dollars given to one firm as a preference? If so, why was that preference given?

Mr. Mackeson: I have no knowledge of that. Perhaps my hon. Friend will put that question on the Order Paper.

Mrs. Mann: Would the hon. Gentleman say exactly what he means about licences being issued for essential purposes? Is it not essential that all women should have fully-fashioned stockings?

Mr. Mackeson: The answer to the hon. Lady is that the determining factor is whether machinery can or cannot be made in this country.

Geneva Trade Discussions

Mr. Bottomley: asked the President of the Board of Trade to make a statement on the recent meeting of the Economic Commission for Europe.

Mr. Hamilton: asked the President of the Board of Trade what offers have been made by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the trade talks now going on in Geneva; and what has been the response of Her Majesty's Government to those offers.

Mr. Mackeson: The recent trade talks in Geneva under the auspices of the Economic Commission for Europe between experts from Western and Eastern European countries were purely exploratory. No specific offers were made to the United Kingdom by the Soviet Government, but there was an amicable and useful exchange of information between the United Kingdom and the delegations of the U.S.S.R. and other Eastern European countries on the possibilities of expanding trade. As Her Majesty's Government have already made clear, they would welcome an increase in trade in goods not subject to our stategic export controls and they will certainly be prepared to follow up any proposals made as a result of the Geneva discussions.

Mr. Bottomley: In view of the brighter prospects of peace and trade, why did no Member of Her Majesty's Government dealing with trade matters attend the meeting?

Mr. Mackeson: It was a meeting of experts and officials and not of Members of Governments.

Mr. Bottomley: It is unnecessary for me to add to that admission by the hon. Gentleman. Is it not a fact that on this occasion the Russians, rather than indulging in political propaganda, were prepared to talk trade and that, for that reason, we ought to have had a Minister there? May I have an assurance that he and the President of the Board of Trade will do all that is possible to increase trade between our two countries?

Mr. Mackeson: Yes, Sir. I can certainly give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. The conversations took place in a most amicable and constructive atmosphere.

Engineering and Shipbuilding Exports

Mr. Lee: asked the President of the Board of Trade the volume and value of our engineering and shipbuilding exports in 1951; by how much did we benefit from the improved terms of trade for comparable exports in 1952; and if he can give an estimate of the degree to which our balance of payments would suffer by a return to the 1951 terms of trade on our present volume of exports of these products.

Mr. Mackeson: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Lee: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that during the first four months of this year there has been a certain worsening in the prices which we can obtain for engineering exports? If that continues, will it not have a most adverse effect on our balance of payments? What is the estimate of the Treasury and the Board of Trade for the rest of the year?

Mr. Mackeson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will look at the figures for which he has asked. They are fairly complicated.

Following are the figures:
The value of United Kingdom exports of engineering products (including ships) in 1951 was £969 million and the volume was about 4 per cent. higher than in 1950. If export prices of engineering goods had been the same in 1952 as in 1951 the value of the engineering products exported in 1952, which was £1,046 million, would have been about £100 million lower. The annual rate of export in the first quarter of 1953, was £994 million; at 1951 prices this would have been reduced by rather


more than £100 million on a trade account basis. No estimate is available of the effect on the balance of payments. These estimates are based on the assumption that the volume of exports would have remained unchanged at the lower prices.

Export Credits (Foreign Goods)

Mr. Turner: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will direct the Export Credits Guarantee Department to assist United Kingdom merchants further by simplifying their present arrangements in relation to sales overseas of foreign goods.

Mr. Mackeson: Yes, Sir. In order to encourage earnings of foreign currencies it is intended that the Export Credits Guarantee Department shall, as from 1st May, dispense generally with detailed examination of such transactions when merchants, whose trade is 90 per cent. or more in United Kingdom goods, seek cover for their trade in foreign goods. There is, of course, no change in the Government's general policy of refusing cover for transactions which compete with the sale of United Kingdom goods

Mr. Turner: While thanking my hon. Friend for his answer, may I ask him if the change will, in practice, apply to all classes of goods?

Mr. Mackeson: Yes, Sir. The object of the decision is to try to expedite the work of the E.C.G.D.

Mr. Bottomley: Did this change in policy originate with officials within the Department, and has it been supported by the Advisory Committee?

Mr. Mackeson: It has been carefully discussed with the Advisory Committee, other Government Departments and the Exports Credits Guarantee Department.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Post-war Credits

Mr. Awbery: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the estimated cost of paying out post-war credits to men at 60 years of age and women at 55, and of paying to next of kin all postwar credits on the death of the holders, respectively.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler): Post-war credits are at present being repaid at a rate of just over

£16 million per annum. If the age for repayment were reduced by five years the total repayment in the year of change would be about £100 million and the annual repayment thereafter would be £17½ million. If repayment were made immediately on the death of the holder the total repayment in the first year, including repayment in respect of deaths which have already occurred, would be about £86 million and the annual repayment thereafter would be about £21½ million.

Mr. Awbery: Is there not a moral obligation on the Government to repay this forced loan to the old men as quickly as possible, particularly as unemployment among aged men is growing and their balance of payments problem is greater than the Chancellor's? Will he give the problem further consideration?

Mr. Butler: This is always a subject of anxiety to me and to the Government and, I suspect, it was to previous Governments, but I am afraid that in present circumstances I am unable to go any further.

Mr. J. T. Price: Will the Chancellor consider applying to these credits the law against perpetuity? As matters stand, the credits can be passed on from one generation to another, and, in my opinion, that would offend against the law of perpetuity.

Mr. Butler: I am aware that if death occurs just before 65 there will be this perpetual—I will not say "motion"— delay in these matters, and I agree that there are very great difficulties.

Mr. S. Silverman: Is it not clear that the vast majority of the people whose money was loaned in this way during the war years will never be repaid in their lifetime? If that is so, would it not be honest and decent of the Government to repudiate any liabilities more frankly?

Mr. Butler: I do not see that that would make things any better. Naturally, if there is a hope of dealing further with the matter, one would like to keep the hope alive. I repeat that this is not a matter which has concerned this Government only; it has concerned previous Governments.

Poplar Railway Dock (Customs Facilities)

Mr. Gough: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements are in force at Poplar Wharf for Customs examinations; and whether he is aware that delays frequently occur, resulting in heavy demurrage charges to importers.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Poplar Railway Dock is approved for the lading and unlading of certain goods in bulk, and a Customs officer attends for any necessary Customs business as required. I am not aware of any complaint that the present Customs facilities are inadequate for the approved traffic. I have no evidence to suggest that delays such as are alleged are attributable to the Customs.

Mr. Gough: Would my right hon. Friend be kind enough to look into a specific case if I bring it to his notice?

Mr. Butler: Yes, certainly.

Purchase Tax Reductions (Retail Prices)

Mr. Coldrick: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that manufacturers are taking advantage of the reduction in Purchase Tax to increase the cost to wholesalers, so that the price to the consumer is the same as before tax reduction; and if he will take action to prevent this.

Mr. R. A. Butler: It may be that there are cases in which the benefit of Purchase Tax reductions is not passed on to the consumer at once. But the present competitive conditions of the market should serve to prevent this except for adequate reason.

Mr. Coldrick: Is the Chancellor aware that Gillette Industries Limited have raised the price on their blades to such a figure that it makes it impossible for the retailer to sell to the consumer at a lower figure than that prevailing before the Budget, and does he not think that such razor-like practice on the part of Gillette Industries Limited nullifies the whole purpose of granting tax reductions?

Mr. Butler: I cannot be responsible for individual practices. The object of the Budget was to see that these prices were reduced, and I very much hope that the state of the market will ensure this reduction in due course.

Mr. Jay: Have the Chancellor or the Government taken any steps, as the Government did after the Budget of 1951 by means of price control, to see that the reductions are handed on to the public?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir, I have studied the device used but from my study of market conditions I realise they are now very different, and I do not think that the device previously used could be effective.

Food Subsidies (Reduction)

Mr. Beswick: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the estimated reduction of £60 million of civil expenditure for the year 1953–54 is accounted for by the estimated reduction in food subsidies.

Mr. R. A. Butler: As I explained in my Budget speech, £60 million is the net reduction in Civil Estimates in 1953–54 compared with last year's Estimates adjusted for the effect of the Budget changes. These changes both on subsidies and on social benefits were in operation for only part of the year 1952– 53 and direct comparison of individual elements in them between the two years is misleading. The reduction this year in the annual rate of food subsidies aimed at last year is £30 million.

Mr. Beswick: Does not the Chancellor think it is equally misleading to compare the proposed expenditure this year with the rate of expenditure at the end of last year, and would it not have been much more frank and in accordance with the Chancellor's customary frankness to say that the proposed expenditure this year will be of the order of £112 million less than the total expenditure last year?

Mr. Butler: If the hon. Member follows the explanation I gave in my Budget statement he will see it was absolutely frank and that it corresponds to the statement I have made now. He will further see that, in fact, the consumer benefited from the deferment of the application of the reduction in food subsidies until the latter part of last year. He will also see that I was not comparing the out-turn of 1952–53 with the Estimates of 1953–54. I sympathise with the hon. Member on the complexity, but there is no desire to avoid a frank statement of the position.

Mr. Beswick: But there is no complexity about this at all. He said quite definitely that the figure was £220 million this year as compared with a rate of £250 million, whereas, in point of fact, expenditure last year was £112 million more than the Estimate for this year?

Mr. Butler: If the hon. Member would take into account the fact, first, that I have said I was not comparing the out-turning to 1952–53 with the Estimates of 1953–54, and, second, that the difference between £30 million and £110 million follows from the fact that the 1952 Budget will be operating for a whole year instead of part of a year, he will see the explanation of those figures. If he would like me to illustrate it by a chart outside I would be glad to do so.

Birmingham Municipal Bank (Assistance Board)

Sir H. Williams: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury why his Department, by Statutory Instrument No. 352, restored, as from 9th March, 1953, the exemption of the Birmingham Municipal Bank from certain disabilities imposed upon it by the National Assistance Act, 1948; if he can furnish an estimate of the illegal payments made by the National Assistance Board between 13th May, 1948, and 9th March, 1953, through the fact that the National Assistance Board ignored the provisions of the National Assistance Act; and if he will introduce an indemnity Bill to relieve the National Assistance Board from the consequence of its illegal acts.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): By regulations made under the Determination of Needs Act, 1941, the Birmingham Municipal Bank was prescribed as a savings bank for the purposes of that Act and the Assistance Board was therefore enabled to disregard savings in that bank, within the Statutory maximum of £375, in dealing with applications for unemployment assistance and supplementary pensions. When it repealed the 1941 Act by the National Assistance Act, 1948, the then Government did not realise that these regulations consequently lapsed. The National Assistance Board continued to disregard such savings in connection with national assistance though the number and amount of

the payments involved cannot be ascertained. It is not thought that there is any need to take steps to indemnify the National Assistance Board. The present regulations regularise the position from 9th March, 1953.

Sir H. Williams: But the National Assistance Board did an illegal act through the neglect of the late Government to introduce the necessary Statutory Instrument, and does my hon. Friend not think that there is a risk of an action for making illegal payments?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is quite impossible to estimate precisely what payments were made which in strictness ought not, in the absence of these Regulations, to have been made. In any event such payments must have been very small and are certainly within the general purpose of the National Assistance Act.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCIENTISTS AND TECHNOLOGISTS

Mr. Lee: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the output of scientists and technologists per head of population in Great Britain.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The number of scientists and technologists coming from the universities and technical colleges of Great Britain with degrees, Higher National Certificates and Higher National Diplomas, or their equivalent, in the academic year 1951–52, is estimated to be one in about 2,600 of the population.

Mr. Lee: Is the Chancellor aware that upon the results of Government activities in this direction may well depend our chances of maintaining our position in the world, particularly in engineering, and is he satisfied that we are making progress at least comparable with that of the United States, Switzerland and the Soviet Union?

Mr. Butler: This has always been a subject near my heart, and the Government are proceeding to do their best to improve the facilities. The hon. Member asked a Question on 28th February, and the proportion has ever so slightly improved since then.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that though Scotland produces a large number of graduates.


there is still great difficulty in persuading engineering and other firms to employ the scientists and technologists in the works, and industry requires a great deal more encouragement to make use of the highest and best form of knowledge?

Mr. Butler: I am aware of that.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Reform

Mr. Ian Harvey: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will now initiate measures for the reform of local government.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): My right hon. Friend has this matter under examination, but there is no early prospect of legislation.

Mr. Harvey: Is my hon. Friend aware of the important recommendations which have been made by the local government associations and that there is a widespread concern at the operation of the local government system? As this is a matter which is supported on both sides of the House, is it not possible to take it up at a much earlier date?

Mr. Marples: The report that was given was not by the associations but to the associations, and the Association of Municipal Corporations, who took part in the recent discussions, subsequently withdrew. Until the associations referred to by my hon. Friend have endorsed the report and until we hear what the Association of Municipal Corporations say, it would be premature to introduce legislation.

Mr. Peart: Would the Minister agree that the time is opportune for a Royal Commission to examine the whole structure of local government and the need for reform?

Mr. Marples: It would be better if the associations could agree among themselves.

Coed Glas Road, Cardiff (Wall)

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he is aware of the decision of the Cardiff City Housing Authority to

build a wall across the Coed Glas Road to separate council houses from those privately owned; and what representations he has made to the local authority on this subject.

Mr. Marples: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Llewellyn) yesterday.

Mr. Thomas: Is the Minister aware that the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Llewellyn) took the precaution of putting down a written Question for written reply, and that there is deep resentment in the city of Cardiff at this decision, which is based on snobbery and class distinction? Will the Minister take steps in connection with the decision of the authority in view of the fact that council house tenants throughout the city are indignant at the attitude which is being taken?

Mr. Marples: Without entering into the controversy of whether a Question is put down for written answer or not, I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that the local authority do not need the approval of my right hon. Friend, and that hon. Members in all parts of the House are constantly asking for local authorities to have more jurisdiction over their own affairs. Perhaps I might repeat part of the answer made by my right hon. Friend? He said, and this is his own opinion—
I should very much regret if anybody were at this time to employ labour and materials on building such a wall or any other smiliar barrier."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th April, 1953; Vol. 514, c. 92.]

Rates

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government the total amount of rates paid to all local authorities last year; what was the amount paid by agricultural and industrial hereditaments, separately, which enjoy derating; and what was the amount of rates that would have been paid without derating in both cases.

Mr. Marples: The total amount of rates for 1951–52 was £318 million. I regret that information is not available as to the distribution amongst the various classes of hereditaments. Valuations of agricultural hereditaments have not been made since 1929.

Mr. Freeman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the enormous increase in rates that has taken place in the country during the last 18 months since the Government came into office? Is he also aware that the exemption which is enjoyed by the larger industrialists and the farmers has to be paid, whether it runs into hundreds of millions of pounds or not, by the ordinary ratepayer throughout the country in every town and village?

Mr. Marples: I cannot give the figures asked for by the hon. Gentleman in his Question because no Government since 1929 has thought fit to ask for them to be compiled.

Mr. Stokes: Does the Minister consider there is any excuse whatever for continuing the derating of industrial hereditaments?

Mr. Marples: That is scarcely the Question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Stokes: But that is the Question I want answered.

Mr. Godber: Does my hon. Friend realise that the effect of re-rating agricultural land will inevitably be to put up the price of food?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Slum Clearance

Mr. Gibson: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what action he is taking to speed up slum clearance in our large towns.

Mr. Marples: My right hon. Friend has told local authorities that they ought now to be turning their attention to slum clearance. It is primarily for each authority to decide the pace of its own operations according to the needs of its area, but he is studying the whole question of unfitness and disrepair with a view to a comprehensive plan in which a renewed slum clearance drive would have a prominent place.

Mr. Gibson: I am sure the House will be glad to hear what the Minister has said, but does he realise that even the mere carrying out of the law in connection with slum clearance involves work for nearly two years before we can begin to build anything, and are the Government considering speeding up that part of the slum clearance procedure?

Mr. Marples: My right hon. Friend is considering all those points, and if the hon. Gentleman has any specific point, I shall be grateful if he will write to my right hon. Friend.

Land, Newcastle-under-Lyme

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if his attention has been drawn to a letter to his Department dated 20th April from the town clerk of Newcastle-under-Lyme on the subject of land for housing development; and what action he is taking.

Mr. Marples: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend has called this case in for decision and is in consultation with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. My right hon. Friend hopes to issue a decision in the very near future. He fully understands the urgency of this to the council.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS

Brick and Cement Supplies

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Minister of Works if he is aware of the shortage of bricks in the Rugby district; and what steps he is taking to overcome this.

The Minister of Works (Mr. David Eccles): No complaints of shortage of bricks in the Rugby district have been received by my Department.

Mr. Johnson: If the Minister would talk to any town councillor or even to any master builder, he would find that there is at least six months' delay at the moment in supplying bricks; cannot he do something about that now that I have told him?

Mr. Eccles: If any town councillor or builder will bring his complaint to me, I will look into it.

Major Anstruther-Gray: asked the Minister of Works what complaints he has received from Scotland of shortage of cement during the last month; and what steps he has taken.

Mr. Eccles: I have received only one complaint, referring to a temporary shortage in South-West Scotland. The position has been remedied.

Major Anstruther-Gray: May we take it from that reply that this matter is no longer giving cause for anxiety?

Mr. Eccles: Not at the moment. Scotland has done very well, having had 35 per cent. more cement this year than in the corresponding period last year.

Mr. D. Griffiths: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that there is an acute shortage of building materials and cement in the Rotherham and district area?

Mr. Eccles: Yorkshire is another question. I am aware that there is some difficulty there, and I have asked the cement makers to increase their deliveries.

Royal Humane Society (Building Licence)

Mrs. White: asked the Minister of Works if he will arrange for the repair or demolition of the Receiving House of the Royal Humane Society near the Serpentine, which in its present condition detracts from the amenities of Hyde Park.

Mr. Eccles: A building licence has recently been granted to the Royal Humane Society for the reconstruction of their Receiving House.

Memorial Hall, Wallsend (Requisitioning)

Mr. McKay: asked the Minister of Works if he is aware that the ground floor of the Memorial Hall, Wallsend, was used up to 1939 for the playing of badminton, general meetings and recreation; that this part of the building has been requisitioned by the Government from 1939 up till now; and, in view of the need for such buildings in Wallsend, if he will take early steps to derequisition this building so that it may be put to the best use.

Mr. Eccles: The Swan Memorial Hall which was requisitioned in October, 1941, is at present held by my Department on behalf of the Ministry of Food who are using the premises for the storage of egg boxes. The building will be de-requisitioned as soon as other arrangements for storing these boxes can be made.

Mr. McKay: Although that may seem all right on the face of it, is the Minister aware that something ought to be done? The Department have had that building long enough and are restricting the

activities of Wallsend people who have few amenities. They want the Minister to take particular notice of the fact that they require the building urgently.

Mr. Eccles: My right hon. Friend and I are trying to find alternative premises.

ATOMIC ENERGY PROJECT (REORGANISATION) COMMITTEE

Mr. G. R. Strauss: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about the future status of the atomic energy project.

The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I made a reply after Questions.

SCOTLAND

Unfit Houses

Major Anstruther-Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many houses in Scotland were estimated to have become unfit for human habitation during each of the last three years.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart): This information could be obtained only by means of a house-to-house survey and I should not feel justified in asking local authorities to undertake so heavy a task at the present time. I am, however, fully aware of the problem and am considering what measures can be taken to deal with it.

Major Anstruther-Gray: Can my right hon. Friend not give a general figure which would give a clear picture of the situation?

Mr. Stuart: I am afraid I cannot. In 1950, when local authorities were approached about this matter, they were unanimous in saying that they did not think the time was opportune. There is more important work to be dealt with in the building of houses.

Mr. Rankin: Is it not the case that in Scotland every local authority compiles these figures from year to year, so why should they not be available?

Mr. Stuart: I am not aware of that fact. In certain areas it may be so.

Private Building

Mr. Wheatley: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of houses built by private builders in Scotland for letting since November, 1951.

Mr. J. Stuart: The nearest period for which information can be given, is the year 1952, when 677 houses were built by private builders in Scotland for letting.

TANKS, LEEDS (SUPERVISION)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

MR. D. GRIFFITHS: To ask the Minister of Supply what supervision is kept on tanks after they have been sent out of the Royal Ordnance Factory at Leeds.

Mr. Griffiths: Mr. Griffiths rose—

Hon. Members: Where is the Minister?

Mr. Speaker: Captain Ryder.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like your guidance and ruling as to what opportunity or redress I have?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member put down a Question for answer. If the Minister is not here, he cannot answer it. [Interruption.] Order, order. I do not know why the Minister is not here. It has nothing to do with me.

Mr. H. Morrison: May I ask you, Sir, whether, in view of the absence of the Minister, my hon. Friend will have an opportunity of asking the Question later, and could we have an explanation from the Government as to where the Minister is?

Mr. Speaker: I will consider that and I will see that the hon. Gentleman gets an answer to the Question.

Mr. Griffiths: Further to my request for guidance, Mr. Speaker, my point is that I want an oral reply and not a written reply. I shall not be satisfied with a written reply.

Mr. Speaker: If the Minister comes in after half-past three, I will ask him to answer the Question.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: May we have a statement from the Leader of the House on this gross discourtesy on the part of the Government?

Mr. Assheton: In view of the extreme attention which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply has always given to business in the House, is this not extremely ungenerous of hon. Members on the opposite side?

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The time for Questions is now over.

Mr. Wigg: Further to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood), surely it is within your recollection, Mr. Speaker, that yesterday the Minister of Supply did exactly the same thing.

The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I may be to blame. Had I read out in full the answer which I shall now, with permission, give to the House, we should well have run through the time of Questions. In trying to meet the convenience of the House, nothing could be further from my intention than to show any discourtesy in the answering of Questions. The discourtesy might consist rather in not making allowance for Ministers who are working under all the stresses of the present time.

ATOMIC ENERGY PROJECT (REORGANISATION COMMITTEE)

The Prime Minister: I should now like—[Interruption.]

Sir T. Moore: Be quiet.

The Prime Minister: I make every allowance for the gay and hilarious mood of the House, but this is a matter of some seriousness. I should like now to make my statement in reply to Question No. 45.
As the House knows, considerable strides have been made in the development of methods for using atomic energy for industrial purposes, and these aspects are now coming very much to the fore. In order to secure the most rapid and economical development in the field of atomic energy, both military and industrial, Her Majesty's Government have set up a Committee consisting of the noble


Lord, Lord Waverley (Chairman), Sir Wallace Akers, and Sir John Woods, with the following terms of reference:
To devise a plan for transferring responsibility for atomic energy from the Ministry of Supply to a non-Departmental organisation and to work out the most suitable form for the new organisation, due regard being paid to any constitutional and financial implications.
It is clear that the form of non-Departmental organisation appropriate in this case will differ from any existing model: overall policy must remain firmly in the hands of the Government and the method of financial control will have to be closely studied since for some time to come almost the whole of the cost will have to be met from public funds. No further statement on the precise form of organisation can be made until Lord Waverley's Committee has proposed a plan in detail and it has been studied by the Government.
Her Majesty's Government think it right to state that, whatever changes may be decided upon, the rights and interests of the existing staff will be fully respected.. Consultation with the staff representatives will take place at the appropriate time.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: May I ask the Prime Minister two questions? First, are we to gather from his reply that a decision has been taken in principle to make this important transfer about which he spoke, without having any knowledge as to how it shall be done, what sort of inter-Departmental organisation shall take the responsibility, or what the financial consequences will be? Would it not have been very much better for the Government to have discovered what the consequences of this proposal were likely to be before deciding in principle whether such a proposal would be advantageous? As the Prime Minister is well aware, in the view of many who have studied this matter it is very doubtful indeed whether the consequences would be advantageous.
Second, why have the Government changed their views on this matter since last year? When I asked a Question last year, the Prime Minister replied in effect that the Government had decided not to proceed with the proposal, which the Paymaster-General had advocated frequently before he became a member of the Government, to make such a change? Now,

presumably, the Government have taken another view. May we ask why? Surely, it is extraordinary for such an important change to be announced by the Government without giving the House any reason why such a change is desirable.
Would the Prime Minister at least tell the House why such a change is desirable? The reason is far from obvious. Will he consider issuing a White Paper setting out the reasons for this change, so that we may be able to study carefully whether the arguments which are in the minds of the Government are desirable? Unless we know the reasons, we cannot possibly say whether the Government's decision deserves the support of the House.

The Prime Minister: If there is any change between the view which I have now announced to the House and what I may have said a year ago, it is the result of further study and consideration with the object of arriving at the best conclusion. That ought to be a complete explanation of that.
As to whether a decision has been taken on a point of principle before the full examination of detail has taken place, we thought it was right to decide on the question of principle before appointing the Committee and setting it to work on its labours, because we are convinced from such surveys as we have been able to make that the result of these labours will not vitiate the principle which we have in mind and which, we think, on the broadest grounds is desirable.
Of course, if the Committee, going about the country, seeing the various establishments and collecting information, brings to us a report which indicates that the view we take of the principle is not well founded or would be in conflict with many of the detailed facts, we should, like other reasonable people might be inclined to do, not hesitate to reconsider the matter. In principle, however, we think that this proposal is right and will be of real advantage to the country. We very much doubt whether anything will result from the investigations of the Committee, armed and sustained as it is by the fact that the Government of the day wish to carry out the principle, which will lead to any change of policy on our part.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that this matter


was considered for a long period and put forward very strongly by the Paymaster-General; and that it has been considered by successive Ministers of Supply who have had the matter in hand—perhaps that accounts for the absence of the Minister of Supply today? There are very great objections, which have been put constantly, from the point of view of financial control; the status of the staff and of making the best use of the scientific resources of this country. We understood a year ago that the right hon. Gentleman took the view which had been taken by, I think, everyone who had examined this in great detail, except perhaps Lord Cherwell, who looked at it from the outside.
I think the House is entitled to know what is the reason for this change. It appears to us that the very points on which decision was to come are now to be looked at by the Committee, and that the right hon. Gentleman is anticipating that decision in a very curious way, and putting the cart before the horse entirely.

The Prime Minister: I did not gather that the Leader of the Opposition suggested that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply had absented himself on this occasion with the deliberate intention of avoiding being present when such an announcement as this was being made—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] He is not here, I am sure, only because Questions came to an unusually early end. I suppose accidents like that do sometimes happen. It is quite clear that if I had made my answer in the ordinary way, neither the absence of the Minister nor the imputation which the right hon. Gentleman has chosen to throw upon it would have had any foundation, or lacked the fullest possible explanation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] I quite agree, but this is a difficult and serious matter. I think it should be argued out in Parliament, and I am very glad it should be. But let us get all the facts ready. After all, surely it is not a party matter. It is a question of doing the best thing we can for our country in a matter on which great sums of money have been spent.
I certainly think it would be easy to find at a later date some opportunity of discussing it, and the Opposition, with their rights over Supply Days—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—can certainly count on

having a wide discretion as to when that can take place. I hope this matter can be considered, but I am quite sure we should be following the example of several other countries, especially the United States, in the matter of making sure that this difficult matter is not gripped unduly by departmentalism.
No doubt strict departmental control of the matter was very important in the days of the right hon. Gentleman, because he was spending hundreds of millions of pounds or thereabouts—he and his party —while keeping it strictly secret from the House of Commons.

Mr. Strauss: May I press this one point? Of course we agree that this matter must be considered objectively. So far as I am aware, there is no party controversy. But we are still without any reason for the proposed change and I suggest to the Prime Minister, in fairness to the House and so that we may consider it objectively, that he should publish a White Paper setting out the reasons which have convinced the Government about this important change they propose. Will he consider issuing a White Paper setting out the arguments which have convinced the Government?

The Prime Minister: I think that now we are going to send the Committee on their tour of inspection, to give us their advice on detail, it would be well to await the result of that before producing a White Paper—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I did not expect you to agree with me. The White Paper could be produced—as I think it should be produced—before right hon. Gentlemen opposite select this subject as one to be debated on a Supply Day.

Mr. H. Morrison: We gather that the Government have made a decision in principle already that this should be transferred from a Department—the Minister not being here—to some non-Departmental authority. That is a very important decision. Then they have appointed a committee to find reasons why the Government are right. The Prime Minister admits the Committee may find reasons why the Government arc wrong, but I do not see how they can, because they are appointed on the basis that the Government are right.
Surely my right hon. Friend is right that now the Government should table


a White Paper and should provide time themselves—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]— certainly they should, to discuss why they have decided this question of principle. It is not fair to expect the Opposition to provide time in order that the Government may justify the policy now announced.

The Prime Minister: If the Government were laggard in providing time, and the matter were one of the highest urgency and importance upon which great differences of opinion prevailed, the difference between the Government providing time and the Opposition providing time is really not one which raises any grave constitutional issues.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is not the absence of the Minister of Supply on this occasion very extraordinary? Not only did he fail to answer Question No. 55, but one would have expected him to be in attendance on the Prime Minister in making this statement. Is the Prime Minister quite sure that the Minister of Supply has not gone on strike in protest at this arbitrary decision to remove atomic energy from his control?

The Prime Minister: I do not know how things were arranged in the late Administration, but nothing is easier in this Administration than for a Minister to tender his resignation if he does not agree with the policy of the Government.

Mr. Albu: As very large sums of money will still be required for financing this research, is it the intention of the Government to finance it by grants in aid which hon. Members will not be able to discuss in this House?

The Prime Minister: All this will be fully discussed. The financial machinery of the House is such that it enables this matter to be discussed—unless the kind of special measures adopted by the Leader of the Opposition were put into force.

Mr. de Freitas: The Prime Minister referred to the American organisation in this matter. Are we to understand that American experience in this field has influenced the Government in their decision?

The Prime Minister: A study of the experience of other countries in this and other fields is always taken into account

by Her Majesty's Government when considering a matter.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: We cannot carry this matter further.

Mr. Lee: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you whether, during the period that this Committee is sitting, it will still be competent for hon. Members to put down Questions to the Minister of Supply and expect to be answered; and further, in the event of the whole control of atomic energy passing out of the jurisdiction of the Minister of Supply, what course will be open to hon. Members to question the Minister as to future conduct on this issue?

Mr. Paget: Further to that point of order. Now the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply is present in the Chamber, can he tell us why his Minister was not here, either to answer Question No. 55, or for this important statement?

Mr. Speaker: In reply to the points of order, I have heard nothing said about any alteration in Questions on this subject and so I presume that, until we hear to the contrary, the old arrangement will stand. As regards the second point about what would happen if the whole control were taken out of the jurisdiction of the Minister, I think that is a hypothetical question in present circumstances and one which we should deal with when it arises.

TANKS, LEEDS (SUPERVISION)

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. A. R. W. Low): I desire to apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, to the House, and to the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. D. Griffiths) for my failure to be present when Question No. 55 was called, and I hope that you and the House will accept my sincere apologies—

Hon. Members: What is the reason?

Mr. H. Morrison: Where is the Minister?

Mr. Low: I will not let it occur again. The answer to Question No. 55 is as follows:

The tanks are moved by transporters under Ministry of Supply control to War


Office depots, and during this move they are locked and sheeted. On arrival at the War Office depot responsibility passes to the War Office.

Mr. Griffiths: Is the Minister aware that that is not a true statement—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—but in fact these tanks are delivered from the Royal Ordnance Factory at Leeds. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] I said, "Is the Minister aware." I hope hon. Members will listen. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that they are dispatched from the Royal Ordnance Factory at Leeds, taken on to waste ground at Castle Hill, Huddersfield, and left there unattended either by police or any military? Is the Minister further aware that any person with an ulterior motive or wanting to sabotage could easily do so? Is he aware that it would be as well, if no care is to be taken in this regard, to build more useful things than tanks?

Mr. Low: During their move of course it may be necessary for them to go to parking places and in such an event the tanks are parked only in authorised parking places where there is an attendant, or where they are convenient for police supervision. If the hon. Member has any particular case in mind in which he has seen tanks parked unattended, I hope he will bring it to my notice.

Mr. Paget: We have had the explanation of the Parliamentary Secretary and we hope that Blackpool will do better on Saturday. Can the hon. Gentleman now tell us why his Minister is not here for this vitally important statement?

Mr. Low: I do not think that arises out of this Question.

Mr. Speaker: That is a separate question.

LONDON TRANSPORT (COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY)

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

CAPTAIN RYDER: TO ask the Minister of Transport if he has considered the memoranda presented to him recently by certain hon. Members urging a full and impartial inquiry into London Transport; and what decision he has reached.

MR. PARTRIDGE: TO ask the Minister of Transport if he is satisfied that the present organisation of London Transport is adequate to deal with the increasing traffic in Greater London.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): The Government have had under consideration for some time the desirability of such an inquiry. We have naturally taken into consideration the memoranda to which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Merton and Morden (Captain Ryder) refers and other representations by hon. Members. The Government have decided that an inquiry should be held into London Transport. A committee will be appointed for this purpose, and its terms of reference will be:
To inquire into the conduct of the undertaking carried on by the London Transport Executive (excluding any questions relating to charges) with a view to ascertaining what practical measures can be taken by the British Transport Commission and the Executive in order to secure greater efficiency and economy, and to report.
The membership of the Committee will be announced shortly.

Captain Ryder: Is the Minister aware that this decision will be widely welcomed by the travelling public generally? In thanking my right hon. Friend, may I ask him to press on with this with all speed?

Mr. Ernest Davies: Would the Minister give an assurance that there will be ample representation of the trade unions on this Committee of inquiry and that matters relating to wages and working conditions will be excluded from it? Will he inform the House that the decision to hold this inquiry is no reflection on the manner in which the London Transport Executive conducts its business at present?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I could certainly give the assurance straight away that we are all indebted to the self-sacrifice and hard work of innumerable people over many years in the London transport world but in our view an authoritative, factual, review is highly desirable. I can also assure the hon. Member that there will be trade union representation. As to the matters other than charges over which the inquiry may range, that I think must be left to the chairman in the light of the terms of reference.

Mr. Partridge: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the statement which appeared in the Press on Friday last that a new and savage increase in fares is anticipated in September of this year? In these circumstances, will he make great haste with the appointment of the Committee so that they can get into action as soon as possible to stop this further blow below the belt to the citizens of London?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I must make it plain that there is already statutory machinery for the appeals on the question of charges. Indeed, an application of the Commission is now before the Transport Tribunal. So the matter is to that extent sub judice and I have naturally included in my answer the phrase,
excluding any questions relating to charges.
I must, however, point out that the inquiry is perfectly free to consider practical measures for improved economy in administration with their eventual bearing on the cost to the travelling public.

Mr. H. Morrison: Is the Minister aware that it is a fact that the agitation of his hon. Friends in this matter has been based upon certain increases in charges—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] That was the whole of their agitation, and that is why they wanted the inquiry—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes. That being the case, why is the right hon. Gentleman excluding the question of fares and charges from the inquiry? In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies), he is also excluding wages and conditions of labour—[HON. MEMBERS: "He did not say that."] I thought they were excluded, but if they are not it is a very serious issue.
May I ask the Minister why he picked out the London Transport Executive? The late Government announced that they would institute from time to time investigations, including Members of Parliament, into the affairs of the various public corporations. If he wants to introduce an inquiry on B.B.C. lines to the British Transport Commission, why did he not do that? Why did he not institute that inquiry, if he wanted to, before he started on this destructive Transport Bill, which came to its scandalous and unconstitutional end last night?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I anticipated that the right hon. Member would ask that question. It is quite possible to separate the operation and working of the London Transport Executive. As he knows very well, it has an entity of its own. No inquiry was necessary to establish that a monopoly of rail and long distance road haulage in single hands was detrimental to the public interest.

Mr. Popplewell: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what type of committee of inquiry he will establish? Is it to be an independent committee, a Departmental committee? Will London Transport Executive have representatives on it? Particularly, will he give the full terms of reference and assure the House that this is not another underhand attack on a public board?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It certainly is not very underhand as I am announcing it in advance of setting up the committee of inquiry. I think the hon. Member had better await the announcement about the composition of the committee, but I can tell him straight away that it will be a Departmental committee in the sense that it will report to a Departmental Minister.

Mr. G. Brown: I understood the Minister to say that the chairman will have discretion to decide whether the conditions of work and wages are within the competence of the inquiry. If that is so, can he say what will happen to the voluntary wage negotiating machinery already set up? Will the committee be entitled to recommend changes in that and, if so, how does the right hon. Gentleman expect the ordinary negotiating machinery to continue?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Apart from charges, which I have expressly announced, I thought that it was well to leave to the chairman the interpretation of the terms of reference. Obviously, agreement arrived at between the unions and the management cannot be varied by a report of this kind.

Mr. Beswick: Will the committee be competent to inquire into the financial arrangements between the London Executive and the Transport Commission, in particular into this rather vexed question as to whether there is more or less paid


by the London Executive into the central overheads of the Transport Commission than is paid by the rest of the country?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: So far as the committee—which I can assure the House will be an efficient one—can do that without entrenching on the question of charges, I am sure that they would be free to do so.

Mr. Mellish: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a dangerous position will occur because if the committee decide that certain economies ought to be made to reduce the so-called charges of the London Transport Executive, that may well mean a lower standard of conditions for the people working on the job? What will be the outcome of that?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think the hon. Gentleman had better wait and see what the committee recommend.

BUDGET PROPOSALS (NEWSPAPER ADVERTISEMENT)

Mr. Gaitskell: (by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has completed his inquiries into a possible Budget leakage referred to in the Private Notice Question and answer of Friday, 17th April.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Yes, Sir. I made inquiries and am satisfied that the firm had no prior knowledge of the change in taxation. Further investigation has revealed that this advertisement, published as it was rather prematurely, was drafted to encourage sales in terms which would cover any or no change in taxation.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Chancellor aware that the outcome of the inquiry will give general satisfaction, not least to my constituent who raised the matter with me? Does he not feel that it would be advisable for those who decide to insert advertisements to appear on the afternoon of Budget day to be rather more careful in their phraseology in future?

Mr. Botler: I said that naturally I am glad that there has been no question at all of any Budget leakage, because the right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the intense care which the authorities who are concerned with these matters take on these occasions, I said that the advertisement was published prematurely. I think

that people cannot be too careful, however noble their motives may be.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the advertisement was clever enough to take in an ex-Chancellor?

MRS. FELTON (CANADIAN ENTRY PERMIT)

Mr. S. Silverman: (by Private Notice) asked whether the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations will make immediate representations to the Government of Canada to request them to reconsider their refusal to allow Mrs. Monica Felton to land in Canada next Monday for the purpose of delivering a series of lectures.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. John Foster): No, Sir. My noble Friend does not propose to make the representation requested by the hon. Gentleman. The House will appreciate that admission into Canada is entirely a matter for the Canadian Government.

Mr. Silverman: While appreciating that under recent constitutional developments the Dominions have a sovereign right to determine these questions, may I ask whether or not the hon. and learned Gentleman recognises that this is a question of Commonwealth relations in which the Minister would be entitled, if he so chose, to make courteous representations on behalf of a citizen of the United Kingdom? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that there would be no point in maintaining the unity of the British Commonwealth of Nations unless each of them recognised the basic common way of life of which freedom of thought, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are necessarily part? Can he undertake, at any rate, that this lady was not excluded as a British citizen from a British Dominion merely because she held unacceptable political opinions?

Mr. Foster: Of course I agree with the hon. Gentleman that my noble Friend would be entitled to make a representation, but he does not propose to do so. With regard to the last part of the supplementary question, that is a matter for the Canadian Government.

Mr. McGovern: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that some of us would be loath to back the exclusion of any person, but would it not be abominable if this lady were allowed to go around the world propagating the falsehoods she has propagated on the platform in this country about germ warfare and the conduct of British and American troops?

Mr. Silvennan: Mr. Silvennan rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This seems to be a matter for the Canadian Government.

Mr. Silvennan: On a point of order. Although this is a matter for the Canadian Government, the Under-Secretary has already admitted in his supplementary answer that the Secretary of State would have the right to make representations. He has said that he does not propose to do so but has not given any reason for that refusal. In those circumstances, would you not, as a matter of order, Mr. Speaker, permit me to ask him whether he would state, to avoid any kind of misunderstanding, what were the reasons which actuated the Minister in refusing to make representations which are obviously called for and which he admits he has a right to make?

Mr. Speaker: I do not see any point in carrying this matter any further.

Mr. Silvennan: On a point of order. In view of the extremely discourteous refusal of the Under-Secretary to answer the question he was asked, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity of raising the matter on the Adjournment.

NEWSPAPER ARTICLE (QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE)

Mrs. Ford: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a personal statement with regard to what happened in the House yesterday afternoon. I wish to make it clear that I realise that I have been guilty of an indiscretion. I apologise most humbly to the House and to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) and the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill).
The article referred to was based on my answers to a series of questions, and

I did not actually write it myself. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] There was some discussion as to whether it should be published as an interview or an article, and I left it to their discretion; but I must, in all fairness, add that when the final draft was read to me over the telephone, I did give my permission to publication. I can only repeat how deeply distressed I am, and I apologise again most profoundly.

Mrs. Braddock: I want, first, to accept the personal apology wholeheartedly; but in view of the rest of the hon. Lady's statement, I think this matter has assumed very much greater difficulty and responsibility as far as this House is concerned. Yesterday, I asked you, Mr. Speaker, whether you would look at the article and see whether you thought that there was a prima facie case of Privilege. I should like to ask you now whether you have done that and whether you think that the article justifies you giving a Ruling that a prima facie case of Privilege has been established.

Dr. Summerskill: I readily accept the apology in the spirit in which it has been tendered by the hon. Lady the Member for Down, North (Mrs. Ford). With regard to the reference to myself in that exceedingly vulgar article, I must confess that I have been in public life long enough to dismiss it with a certain contemptuous indifference. But on examining it more fully it was clear to me that whoever was responsible for it—not necessarily the hon. Lady—did intend to disparage hon. Members and to disparage our whole Parliamentary procedure.
I conclude by saying to the hon. Lady that I hope that she will not think that this House in an ungenerous place. Indeed, it is a most generous place, especially to newcomers. Subsequently she will learn this, but in matters which concern our dignity, the parties in this House form a united front. It is for this reason that we ask Mr. Speaker to take the necessary action.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) has asked me for my Ruling on this matter, but, of course, it is not for me to say whether a breach of Privilege has been committed. That is for the House, not the Speaker, and the question which I have to answer is Whether,


in the circumstances, there is a prima facie case which will justify a Motion being proposed that the case of the complaint of the hon. Member is a matter to be further considered.
I have read the article, and in view of what we have heard today about its origin, and the fact that the hon. Lady the Member for Down, North (Mrs. Ford) has apologised to the House, I think the House will accept that apology, but it appears that the article was not actually written by her in the usual sense of that term. Taking everything into account, I feel that I must rule that here there is a prima facie case, and if the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange wishes to move a Motion, I shall be prepared to permit her.

Mrs. Braddock: I beg to move:
That the matter of the complaint be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

Dr. Summerskill: I beg to second the Motion.

The Prime Minister: It is the ordinary custom, when such a Motion is moved, for the Leader of the House or the Prime Minister to make this Motion to you, Mr. Speaker. It is the usual custom, though we may have had some breaches in it. I am bound to say that there is also a very long tradition, in what I may call minor matters of decorum, when an apology has been made, full, frank and wholehearted, for that apology to be accepted with generosity by the House, and I am not—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about the newspaper?"]—I am not prepared in these circumstances to support the Motion which has been moved. I think the House will fall below its proper level of kindly and generous behaviour to act in this way.

Mr. Attlee: I think the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister has misapprehended the matter. The whole House was perfectly willing to accept the hon. Lady's apology. I think the point here is in regard to this newspaper, which, in my view, took advantage of the inexperience of an hon. Member of this House and therefore published matter that should rightly be inquired into. There is no doubt, I think, that the newspaper knew perfectly well that it was doing wrong and was doing harm.

The Prime Minister: I had not fully appreciated the fact that no further vin-

dictive process or protest was in view against the hon. Lady, and that her frank apology had been accepted by the House. If that is so, I withdraw.

Question put, and agreed to.

Mrs. Braddock: On a point of order. Will you now say, Mr. Speaker, in view of this position and the decision taken by the House, that any comment—and I am using the word "comment" advisedly, rather than report—that is made in any other organ of the Press while the matter is being investigated will receive the condemnation of this House?

Mr. Speaker: I could not give a Ruling in those wide terms, but I think the journalists are very well aware of the views of this House on these matters.

Mr. Baxter: On a point of order. I should like, if you will allow me, to call attention to what I think may be a breach of Privilege concerning the professional activities of the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg). It is only for purposes of clarification, and not in any vindictive" spirit, that I raise it, and if I may put the point I should be very grateful. The point is to try to find out what is private and not private, and not so much a matter of taste. In this publication, "Reynold's Newspaper" last week—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Member inform me what is the date of the newspaper to which he refers?

Mr. Baxter: Last Sunday.

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid the hon. Member has not raised it in time. The hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) raised this matter yesterday at the earliest opportunity, and it is a rule with matters of Privilege that that must be done. The matter is decided; it has been referred to the Committee of Privileges.

Miss Lee: So that there may be no misunderstanding, may I say that, before the suggestion was made that no comment of any kind ought to appear in the Press, I have been responsible for a comment of a very moderate kind in a weekly newspaper which I am sure will not give offence to anybody in this House. I am now making the statement that I have done before any statement to the contrary is made here.

Mr. Speaker: I can only say that I share the hon. Lady's hope.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.19 p.m.

The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. Osbert Peake): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The Bill deals with maternity benefits under the National Insurance scheme. I must confess that I prefer the word motherhood, but I am advised that to make a change at this stage would be too revolutionary a departure.
The right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill), whom we are invariably pleased to see in her place, is reported to have told an audience of Labour women in Edinburgh recently that this is a subject which is of only academic or theoretical interest to men.

Dr. Barnett Stross: Shame.

Mr. Peake: Be that as it may. Her assertion reminds me of an acrimonious dispute in this House many years ago, when we were discussing penal reform, between the late George Lansbury and the late Jimmy Maxton each claiming to have been in prison more recently than the other—on grounds, if I may add, of honourable conscience—and claiming thereby to speak with the greater authority. I hope we can agree, in principle at any rate, that there are many topics where personal experience is not an indispensable prerequisite of a useful contribution to debate. Fortified by this reflection against the shafts of the right hon. Lady. I come to the background of the Bill.
National Insurance benefits and pensions are provided, broadly, for two purposes; first, interruptions of earning power or income due to misfortunes which cannot be foreseen, such as sickness, unemployment, widowhood or industrial accident; and secondly, for loss of earning capacity due to retirement on account of old age. The death grant stands in a category of its own. Old age is a forseeable contingency, and death is inescapable; private provision against them is both right and proper, but it has also been generally accepted that some

provision should be made for them by means of compulsory State insurance.
Motherhood does not fall precisely into any of these categories; on the one hand, it is not regarded as a misfortune by most of the parents whom I have come across; on the other hand, it is not, like death or old age, inevitable, and it can be foreseen only for a limited period of time. Nevertheless, in some cases it involves a loss of earnings, and it always involves the family in considerable additional expense. The happy event has therefore been accepted as a proper subject for financial provision by means of national insurance. Indeed the original Acts of 1911 and 1913 provided benefits for it which were quite substantial in relation to other social security payments introduced at that time.
Under the Act of 1911 the birth of a child attracted a grant of 30s. and from 1913 of £3 if the mother as well as the father was insured; and these figures, small as they appear today, must be considered in relation not only to the price level existing at that time, but also in relation to figures such as 7s. 6d. a week for sickness benefit, and 5s. a week for the original old age pension. In the years between 1913 and 1946 the only change made in maternity benefit was the increase in the grant to £2, or £4 if both parents were insured, in 1920.
The scheme of maternity benefits proposed by the Coalition Government in 1944 and embodied in the Act of 1946 did not differ very materially from the recommendations in the Beveridge Report. These were a lump sum of £4 for all births and a weekly allowance for mothers who had recently been in paid employment, at the rate of 36s. for a period of six weeks on either side of the confinement. The main difference between the Beveridge Report on the one hand, and the proposals of 1944 and the Act of 1946 on the other, lay in the inclusion of a new benefit, an attendance allowance of £1 a week payable for four weeks after the birth to mothers not eligible for the 36s. weekly allowance. This attendance allowance and the weekly maternity allowance of 36s. could not both be drawn; they were alternatives.
Contribution conditions, which differ for different benefits, are an essential feature of National Insurance. For the maternity grant and attendance allowance


they were easy, and could be satisfied on either the husband's or the wife's insurance. For the maternity allowance—that is the 36s. a week allowance—they were on a different basis. Their effect was that maternity allowance was available to a woman who had been in actual employment for a substantial time during the 52 weeks ending at the sixth week before her confinement was expected. A minimum of 26 weeks of paid work in this year was required, and a minimum of 45 contributions or credits as an employed or self-employed person. Married women in paid employment who had exercised an option not to contribute themselves were, however, allowed to qualify for the allowance by being credited with contributions for this purpose for weeks of paid work as well as for weeks of sickness or unemployment. The effect of all this was that under these conditions a woman had to continue work until the end of the sixth month of pregnancy and often longer, unless she was sick or unemployed.
This new scheme, part of the general proposals embodied in the Act of 1946, looked on the face of it both just and generous. It had not, however, been in operation for more than 18 months before certain defects in it became apparent.
In the first place, whilst the new attendance allowance which provided £4 over and above the £4 grant had proved welcome, it was not clear that any good purpose was being served by paying it in weekly instalments.
Secondly, the scheme for giving a weekly maternity allowance to women who had been doing paid work was not working satisfactorily. Most women in employment wanted to give up work earlier than the conditions for benefit allowed, and it was feared that the contribution conditions were having the effect of encouraging them to go on working longer than they would otherwise have done, and that other regular workers were not getting the allowance at all because they had, through no fault of their own, to give up work earlier in pregnancy. Moreover the position under which the whole allowance might be lost by the lack of a single contribution or credit was not at all a happy one. Again, there was doubt whether it was fair or equitable that the weekly allowance should be paid to women who had decided not to pay contributions, seeing that the burden of

finding the money is largely met by the contributions paid by other women.
Lastly, there was a growing feeling that it was unfair that the mother who had saved quite a lot on food and household expenses by having her baby in free hospital accommodation should receive the same amount of benefit as the mother who had her baby at home and had these extra expenses to meet.
My predecessor, the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West therefore decided to refer the whole scheme for advice to the National Insurance Advisory Committee, the eminent body presided over by Sir Will Spens, which includes, besides other distinguished persons, representatives of both sides of industry and consisting, I may add in parenthesis, almost entirely of men.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: There are two women.

Mr. Peake: This Committee has investigated many difficult and baffling problems on behalf of my Ministry. Their reports contain a body of sound and well-considered recommendations which, when adopted, have proved their worth in operation. In their review of maternity benefit the Committee have, I think, given us an extremely valuable report. I am afraid I should only confuse the House if I were to take them in detail through all the Committee's recommendations, but I will draw special attention as I go along to the few minor points where we depart from them.
The Committee were, of course, prohibited by their terms of reference, laid down by the right hon. Lady, from making recommendations which would add to the expenditure of the National Insurance Scheme. But since the Committee's report was published in January, 1952, the present Government decided at the time of last year's Budget to increase all the main benefit and pension rates embodied in the 1946 Acts, both for National Insurance and for industrial injury, by approximately 25 per cent. We could not at that time include in the Bill increases for maternity. The Committee had recommended important changes in structure and we needed time both to obtain and to consider the reactions of the public to them. Even had it been possible to include maternity


provisions in last year's Bill, the changes in structure would have led to discussion, which would have delayed the passage into law of a Measure which we regarded as most urgent, and was for that reason confined to changes in rates of benefit and contribution.
In the present Bill, therefore, we have both adopted a new pattern, based on the Committee's recommendations, and provided for increased benefits of a substantial order correspnding to those made last year for other rates. The actual annual cost of the new provisions, so far as they can be estimated by the Government Actuary, will in a normal year be £2½ million; the existing figure of £8¼ million will rise to about £10¾ million. This increase is of the order of 30 per cent. We do not propose at the present time to make the appropriate increases in rates of contribution; these would be small anyway, and changes of rates are a major operation involving the withdrawal of all the current stamps and the printing and issue of new ones. This question of contribution will be deferred for consideration until the quinquennial review to be begun next year.
I will now describe briefly the main proposals of the Bill which is before the House. The new maternity grant of £9 incorporates an element in respect of the old attendance allowance which is to be abolished, and it will be payable in full for all confinements. The whole amount will be available for a woman to claim at her discretion, when she most requires it, either shortly before or after confinement. Here we depart from a recommendation of the Advisory Committee which suggested that part of the grant should be withheld till a fortnight after the birth. The Committee emphasised the desirability of providing as large a Jump sum as possible immediately preceding the birth. I feel fairly confident, therefore, that the course we suggest will commend itself to the House. But what I most want to emphasise is that the £9 grant will be payable in full with the weekly maternity allowance, whereas the present £4 attendance allowance is not. For the future all mothers, whether themselves insured or not, will get the grant in full.
Then there is the new benefit known as the home confinement grant. This is £3,

making £12 in all where the baby is born at home. This also is payable with the weekly allowance. For twins, the £9 grant is doubled, but the home confinement grant is not. Twins born at home thus attract a grant of £21, triplets £30, and so on ad infinitum.
The purpose of this new benefit, the home confinement grant, is to offset the financial advantage enjoyed by a woman who has her confinement in a National Health Service hospital over the woman who is confined at home. The grant is designed entirely and only to secure that considerations of financial advantage do not influence a decision which, as the Committee said, should be taken on other grounds. The Advisory Committee received more evidence in favour of such a provision than on any other aspect of the scheme, and in their latest Report the Central Health Service Council observe:
…another factor which tends to make hospital confinement more popular is that under the National Health Service it is free, whereas a home confinement entails more expense on attendance, bedding, equipment, and so on.
I turn now to the important changes proposed in the Bill regarding maternity allowance. The Advisory Committee endorsed all the criticisms of the present scheme to which I have alluded earlier. They found that the majority of mothers in employment gave up work earlier than the sixth week before the baby's arrival, and that others were continuing at work too long solely in order to satisfy the contribution conditions. They stated also that they
…could see no ground on which a woman who has chosen not to pay contributions should be entitled to a weekly insurance benefit, the cost of which is largely met by the contributions paid by other women.
Their investigation of this problem also brings out two very interesting aspects of it. First, they stated emphatically that they could find no evidence that an especially high rate of benefit is necessary to induce women to abstain from work at the appropriate time before confinement. Secondly, they found—and this is a most striking feature of their Report—that not more than one-third of the women who receive this benefit—that is, the weekly allowance—in fact return to work after the birth. Hon. Members will remember that the weekly allowance was designed to provide for an interruption of earning


capacity during a period of six weeks on either side of confinement.
The Committee's finding of fact well illustrates the fundamental difficulty about this allowance. Where a mother has been working before the birth of her child, the allowance is payable; but no one, very often not even the mother herself, can say whether or not she will resume work afterwards. In fact, what has been happening is that this allowance is tending more and more to become an allowance paid in respect of the first child of the family. Nevertheless the Committee recommended the continuance of the allowance; an extension of its period; and the payment of it at the standard rate of benefit under the National Insurance Scheme.
The proposals in the Bill, which are designed to carry out the Committee's recommendations, are therefore as follows: first, the period over which the allowance is spread will begin five weeks sooner, at the eleventh instead of the sixth week before the baby is expected. It will continue for the same period after confinement as hitherto and the weekly payments will be at the standard rate of 32s. 6d. for 18 weeks, in place of 36s. for 13 weeks as at present. The result is an increase of the amount paid by way of the allowance from £23 8s. to £29 5s. When we add to this sum of £29 5s. the lump sum grants now available for either hospital or home confinement, this type of mother—the one who has been going out to work—will in future receive £38 5s. for a hospital confinement or £41 5s. for a confinement at home. These totals compare with £27 8s. under the existing scheme. Another beneficent change made by the Bill is that by regulations made under Clause 8, the maternity allowance can carry dependants' allowances with it during the whole period for which it is payable.
Women will be able to stop work sooner in pregnancy not only because the allowance will begin five weeks earlier, but also because of important changes we are making in the contribution conditions. For the future the qualifying period will end 13 weeks before the expected birth in place of six weeks as at present. Moreover, we are accepting the Committee's recommendation that a shortage of contributions should no longer entail complete loss of benefit. It

will be scaled down as it is at present for other types of benefit, but we are making one further change here which departs from the Advisory Committee's proposal that a minimum of 45 contributions for weeks of work or credits for weeks of unemployment or sickness, should be required for benefit at the full rate.
For the future we propose that as for unemployment and sickness benefit, 50 such contributions or credits shall be required for full rate benefit, but that, where a woman has at least 39, she can make up the balance by contributions in the non-employed class, that is to say, at the lowest rate. For benefit at full rate a woman need, therefore, only have been in the employment field for 39 weeks during the qualifying period, instead of for 45 weeks as at present. The main effect of these complicated changes, therefore, is that in future a woman can leave her work at the end of the third month of pregnancy and still qualify for the allowance at the full rate.

Mr. William Keenan: Does that mean that women have to pay contributions every week, whether they are working or not, in order to qualify for benefit?

Mr. Peake: For the full rate a woman should have 50 contributions either paid or credited in respect of weeks of unemployment or sickness. If she has a deficient record, she will be able to get benefit at a reduced rate even though she has only a minimum of, I think it is, 26 contributions.
In conclusion, I will just make a passing reference to the transitional provisions and the necessity for them. For the new lump sum grants there is no difficulty about transitional arrangements. For all births occurring on or after an appointed day, which will be as soon as practicable after the Bill becomes law, the £9 maternity grant will be paid, and where appropriate the £3 home confinement grant.
The changes in maternity allowance, which are more complex, call for more complex transitional provisions. In framing them, our object has been to ensure that no woman who has at the appointed day in any way or to any extent a record which might count towards her qualifications for it. shall fail to get a maternity


allowance because of the changes made by the Bill. The new and more valuable maternity allowance under the new scheme is to depend on paid contributions. We have therefore provided that the old allowance shall continue to be available on the old conditions, as an alternative to the new, for confinements expected any time in the 65 weeks after the appointed day. For this purpose, but only for this purpose, the arrangements for contributions to be specially credited to non-contributors will be continued. For confinements expected after the end of the 65-week period women will have had time to qualify in full for the new allowance by contributions paid after the appointed day.
I believe this Bill will receive a general welcome, unlike some other Government Measures. The only criticism of it, so far, is that its introduction had been too long delayed. It is true that 14 months elapsed between the publication of the Committee's Report and the presentation of this Bill. That interval has by no means been wasted. In the course of it, we have not only improved in some respects upon the Committee's recommendations, but we have also superimposed upon its plan improvements in benefit rates which the Committee were prohibited, by their terms of reference, from considering. Moreover, we have had to deal with the highly complex question of transitional arrangements from the old scheme to the new which the Committee did not touch.
The Bill makes the most generous provision for motherhood yet made in the history of our social services. The benefits which it provides will, in combination with the National Health Service, ensure good conditions for mothers at a critical time, and a good start in life for children. I think I may also claim that this Coronation year is a happy moment in our history for a Measure so beneficial to family life.

4.45 p.m.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: Although the Minister implied that his knowledge in this matter was equal to mine, his exposition appeared to me to be a little laboured, if I may use that expression. Perhaps he did not feel so much at home about it as he would liked to have done. After speaking for

about 10 minutes, the right hon. Gentleman said that I had referred this matter to the National Insurance Advisory Committee. He was a little ungenerous, and, at the risk of appearing immodest I must point out to the House that the previous Labour Government were responsible for initiating this piece of legislation.
I would not have appeared so immodest had it not been for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who implied in the House last week that the increases in benefit made by the present Conservative Government stemmed from their generosity, when the Minister knows, I know and the officials know that the increases which the Minister has already mentioned today were related to increases in the cost of living, and, indeed, to an anticipation of an increase in the cost of living. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the cost of living was static, but the Minister knows that that is purely fortuitous. The procedure at the Ministry of National Insurance has always been the same; for administrative reasons they have had to look ahead.
I want to forestall Conservative candidates at the next Election claiming credit for the Bill, and in case hon. Gentlemen opposite think that this is an overstatement I would refer them to page 5 of the Report where, in the introduction, it is made quite clear that I invited the National Insurance Advisory Committee to examine the whole position with a view to making recommendations which would be finally embodied in legislation.
The Minister has referred to 14 months of gestation on the Bill. I make it about 15 months since the report on the maternity benefit provisions. It is astonishing to me, having regard to the fact that so many of these recommendations were long overdue, that the Minister should have taken such a long time to frame a Bill of 14 Clauses only, one Clause per month, to help expectant mothers. As the provisions of the Bill could not for a moment have been calculated to provoke controversy, why the delay?
Whatever the reason, the Minister has certainly given an excellent talking point to those who object to the amalgamation of the Ministry of National Insurance with the Ministry of Pensions. They may well say that if it takes 15 months for the Ministry of National Insurance to prepare a 14-Clause Bill, they need to


expand their staff and not to embrace another Ministry. Perhaps I am being a little unkind to the Minister and it is not so much the Minister's fault as that of Her Majesty's Government who, in assessing priority, put brewers and bankers before mothers.
It was remarkable to see how quickly the Government framed legislation within a few weeks to help the brewers and the bankers, but the expectant mothers, poor things, have had to wait for 14 months before they have had this very limited and broadly non-controversial Bill. I would say that the provisions of the Bill broadly are non-controversial and acceptable but certain aspects call for comment, and one particularly calls for serious criticism.
As the Minister has said, this Bill gives the expectant mother who is confined at home £3 more than her neighbour who may enter hospital for her confinement. On the face of it, this is eminently fair. No one would contend that the woman who has her confinement at home does not incur greater expense than the woman who has her confinement in hospital. But there are other things which fill me and my hon. Friends with apprehension. How far will this financial differentiation act as an inducement to stay at home?
The excellent Spens Report on Maternity Benefits dealt with this matter. Members of the Committee made it quite clear that they were anxious that an expectant mother should decide whether she should go to hospital or stay at home irrespective of the amount of the grant which she would receive. Nevertheless—and I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health will agree with me —many harassed hospital authorities devoutly wish that the whole confinement grant would act as an inducement to mothers to stay at home in order that beds for maternity cases should be freed for medical and surgical cases. It should be pointed out, however, that from an obstetrical and also an economic point of view it pays a modern housewife to enter hospital for her confinement.
I want to deal with this for a few moments because the Minister has pointed out today that a new principle has been introduced. There is introduced in this Bill, for the first time, a differentiation between the amount paid to a woman at home and that paid to a

woman in hospital. I am not concerned with the comparison of the well-off mother who is free to make a decision in the light of circumstances, but with the over-burdened woman whom we all know, whose living conditions are poor, who has heavy family responsibilities and perhaps has a ne'er-do-well husband and who will be tempted to sacrifice herself for the sake of the extra few pounds. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) has thousands of such women in her constituency
It is useless to argue that the interests of these women will be safeguarded by midwifery services, because the woman herself has the last word; and though the doctor or the health service officials may say that home conditions are unsatisfactory and that she should go to hospital, she will be free to stay at home. I hope that the Minister read the whole of the speech which I made at Edinburgh. I said then, and I say again, that if there was a trend in this direction, if this extra £3 tended to make a woman sacrifice herself in this way, then this Bill marked the end of an era of enlightened midwifery, because I do not think that anyone would contend that there is no relationship between the record low maternity mortality rate and the record low neo-natal mortality rate and the provision of maternity hospitals in the last 20 years.

Dr. Stross: Does my right hon. Friend contend that this relationship is an important factor, or the most important factor, or would she place the improvement in nutrition far ahead of it?

Dr. Summerskill: I think that my hon. Friend will agree with me that in the last 20 years there have been tremendous changes. Twenty years ago there were nearly 3 million unemployed in the country. I am sure that he will agree that a good obstetrical service is of tremendous importance when a woman is about to be delivered, whatever the nutritional standard may be.
I look forward to the day when every woman can choose between hospital and home in precisely the same way as a wealthy woman can choose between a private ward in a hospital or even a private nursing home and her home. If it is


contended that the home is the right place when the conditions are satisfactory, then I say that maternity accommodation in the private wings of hospitals and, indeed, in expensive nursing homes should be used for other purposes. But I am not one of those who hold the view that there is something about even an ill-equipped home which one cannot get in a hospital.
The provision of obstetrical service in hospitals is not the only consideration. A hospital affords a mother rest after her confinement which she is so often denied in her own home and which she so richly deserves. This most striking statement is made on page 10 of the Spens Report:
The cost of extra help in the home is also a most uncertain figure—both because the woman confined in hospital normally requires less attendance when she returns home, and for a shorter period, than the woman confined at home….
I welcome the presence of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, because I know of the pressure that is brought upon her. This statement by the Committee is most important. In fact, the Committee say that there is evidence that when the woman returns from hospital after her confinement her physical condition is so much better than that of a woman who stays at home for her confinement that she requires less attendance. That is the answer to those who are so anxious to persuade poor women to stay at home. Yet it is astonishing how many people who have no conception of the physical and psychological aspects of confinement are so dogmatic on the matter and who say that, provided there is running water and the minimum of facilities, the home is the best place for a confinement.
I have been struck by the conversations that I have had with my hon. Friends who have been members of large families and who have a very understanding approach to this problem. I say that a hospital confinement must not be regarded by the prejudiced as a waste of a bed which might well be used for other purposes, but rather that it must be regarded as offering a safe delivery for the woman and child and a period of rest for a woman who has just emerged from a trying ordeal, with its psychological reactions and who, moreover, is called upon to tax her physical resources

once more to feed her child. Is it surprising that one-third of babies are bottle-fed when we know how much pressure is brought on women to remain outside hospital for their confinement?
We must watch this scheme very carefully to ensure that the apprehensions which I have expressed are not realised. It is inevitable, of course, in a complex insurance scheme for certain of the assumptions on which it was based to have been proved wrong. We know that. Those of us who have followed the working of the scheme very carefully for the last few years realise that when it was originally framed it had to be based on certain assumptions, and nobody is infallible. The maternity allowance was intended to help those women who must be tided over a difficult economic period in connection with their impending confinement, but the provision was made on the assumption that they would return to work.
As the Minister has said, the Report reveals that only a small proportion of those women return to work after their first child, and in most cases the maternity allowance therefore makes provision for the pre-natal and post-natal period in respect of the first child only. Any alleged hardship in connection with the new system of contributions made in this Bill—and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Keenan), who asked about contributions, will bear this point in mind—must be seen in the light of this fact.
By that I mean that while a potential mother will be expected to continue after marriage the insurance contributions which she made as a single woman in order to secure a full maternity allowance or a proportion of that allowance, in the majority of cases this will continue for that period of married life which precedes the birth of the first child, when both the husband and wife are wage earners and when the heavy expenses associated with married life have not yet been incurred.
I now want to mention a point which merits strong criticism, and I ask the Minister to be receptive and sympathetic to it. I know that this is a very complex subject, and it happens that I have had contact with it in all kinds of ways. I have not only been the Minister concerned; I have been a mother and a


doctor responsible for operating the old scheme for many years, so I am familiar with its variations. The Report reveals that the maternity allowance under the present scheme is not enjoyed by all those who are entitled to it, in consequence of their failure to establish a claim.
Under the scheme as at present constituted, entitlement depends upon compliance with the condition that at least 45 contributions as an employed or self-employed person must be paid or credited in the 52 weeks before the period of six weeks prior to confinement. Pages 16 and 17 of the Report make it quite clear that this condition operates harshly. It may be possible for a sedentary worker to comply with it, but a factory worker, standing at a machine all day, a conductress on a 'bus, or a domestic worker scrubbing offices, is physically unable to do so, however willing she may be, without detriment to her health.
I therefore welcome the new structure which enables an expectant mother to retire for 18 weeks, 11 of which may be before her confinement. But while it is recognised that the present conditions bear harshly on the expectant mother, will the conditions attaching to the new benefits remedy the position? The Committee recommended that 45 contributions should be paid in the contribution period ending 13 weeks before the confinement; yet the Minister has ignored that recommendation.
I do not know whether he is fully conscious of what he has done; I do not think he is. On the whole, he is a fair person, but I do not think that he has given full consideration to this point, which merits serious criticism. He has ignored this recommendation, and he makes it a condition that 50 contributions must be paid in this period to qualify for the full payment of the maternity allowance.
I do not think that an expectant mother who is doing heavy work will be able to comply with the new conditions, although she may be the one in the greatest need. I recognise that uniformity with and relation to sickness benefit is attractive, but there are other factors in a maternity scheme which make a hard and fast rule unworkable I would draw the Minister's attention to paragraph 16 of the Report, which says:

… the statutory authorities who decide claims to benefit do not accept a certificate of normal pregnancy as evidence of incapacity except for the six weeks before the expected confinement.
I will give him an illustration of what this means. I think he will accept the fact that "scrubbies" and heavy workers are not able to draw the full allowance because they are not able to comply with the condition. Let us suppose that there are two girl typists in a typists' pool, working at the top of a three-storey building in the City. That is not an overstatement; hundreds and thousands probably do that. One of the typists is married and is about to have a baby; the other is single.
The single girl goes out, has a game of tennis and sprains her ankle, or has an attack of "tennis elbow," in consequence of which she feels a bit run down and does not feel like going up all the flights of stairs to her work. She goes to her doctor, and she is entitled to obtain from him a certificate of incapacity, and to be credited with a sickness credit for her contribution.
The girl at the next desk is, let us say, five months' pregnant. She has a sedentary job and she has stuck it out so far, but the time comes when she feels a little cramped, sitting in one chair all the time, and she feels puffed out when she climbs up the stairs to her work. She feels she would like a few days off. In terms of discomfort she is infinitely worse off than the girl with "tennis elbow" or a slightly sprained ankle, but she is denied a certificate of incapacity because her condition is normally associated with pregnancy.
It is all very well for the Minister to ignore the recommendations of the Committee who, knowing these things well as I do, say that 45 contributions are sufficient because they know that that woman, if she is uncomfortable, short of breath, and so on, is unable to obtain a certificate of sickness and thereby obtain a credit. They have, therefore, been fairly generous. I would remind the Minister that the people we are talking about are, for the most part, unorganised. He and I have to protect their interests.

Mr. Peake: The right hon. Lady has been very fair about the Bill, but in the various calculations she has been making she has failed to take account of the fact that in making the number of contributions for benefit 50, instead of 45 as at


present, we are permitting 13 contributions—at the non-employed rate—in respect of weeks of non-employment to count towards the number required for the full benefit.
The right hon. Lady will see that we have taken out of the qualifying period the 13 weeks preceding the confinement, and we have permitted, in respect of any part of the qualifying period—say, the 13 weeks before that—13 non-employed contributions, which brings us back to the end of the third month of pregnancy. If, during the first three months of pregnancy, a woman is not well enough to go to work, she might get a certificate of sickness to cover that period and still obtain the full benefit, although she has not worked at all during the whole period of pregnancy.

Dr. Summerskill: The Minister's approach is rather a male one. It is what he thinks sickness and discomfort would qualify for. To obtain a certificate there must be a pathological condition. Pregnancy is a physiological condition, and that does not entitle a doctor to give a certificate. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) and I have very often ignored those regulations and our consciences are quite clear. On many occasions I have given such women certificates, knowing that if I did not they would not qualify.
The excuse the Minister gives is extremely feeble. The woman is working, I presume, because she wants the money. She would not continue working, even after her first perhaps uncomfortable second or third month of pregnancy, unless she wanted the money. There is no evidence of wealthy women working daring their pregnancy. Therefore, we assume the woman who works wants the money. The Minister says, "You have overlooked that she can pay when she is unemployed, if she so wishes. She is not to get wages, but she will be given this great concession of being allowed to pay over that period." The Minister will appreciate, if he gives more consideration to it, that, although this looks very well on paper, in operation it is cruel and harsh. I ask him to get advice on this point between now and the Committee stage from some of the women workers he employs. They would give him excellent advice.
I see the hand of barren male officialdom upon this Bill, which departs from the more humane recommendations of the National Insurance Advisory Committee which was specially set up to advise the Minister. The paradoxical thing is that in his opening remarks the Minister prided himself, quite rightly, on being advised by such an efficient Committee. The point is that on that Committee there is at least one doctor of medicine and two women, whereas I happen to know that in his own office the Minister is surrounded—if I may say so with due respect—by a small group of people who have had no practical experience in this matter.
If the Minister makes this concession he is not making a concession to me or my party. All he is doing is deferring to that Advisory Committee, which has been set up to advise him and is composed of excellent fully qualified people. They have recommended him to do something. All I say is: Accept their recommendation; do not reject it. If I may say so with all respect, they know much more about it than even he does. One reason this Bill has been introduced is that we recognise that we made some mistakes in the past and we want to rectify them. But if this Bill is passed in its present form, I anticipate that it will be a repetition of our previous experience, and large numbers of expectant mothers will be physically incapable of complying with the regulations.
The dependants' allowances are very welcome, but does the Minister think that they are enough in the special circumstances? An expectant mother with a family and a dependent husband is subject to all kinds of strains, mental and physical; her period of pregnancy must be fraught with worry, and unless we are generous she will be forced, whatever her conditions of work, to continue working to the 11th week before confinement for fear of losing her full allowance. I do ask the Minister to consider the dependants' allowances again.
It has been said that a civilisation can be judged by the status of its women. I think it is agreed that there is a great deal of truth in this. I therefore ask the Minister to be more generous in his approach to this Measure, and to regard it, not only as a contribution to our social


services, but as a further tribute to the selfless and arduous work of the mothers of this country.

5.14 p.m.

Mr. J. K. Vaughan-Morgan: We have all listened with great interest to the Minister's speech and to the speech of the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill). I was frankly a little disappointed with the right hon. Lady's approach. She started by praising the Bill with faint damns and ended by damning it with very faint praise. She seemed to hover between one attitude and another. She started by saying that she intended to forestall any Conservative attempt to take any credit for the Bill at the next General Election, and proceeded to say that the Minister should have no credit at all for the Bill as it stood. There seems to have been some uncertainty between the two attitudes. I had hoped that she would make a quite different approach to the Bill as it stood and, if I might paraphrase a line of Lord Byron's, take as the keynote of her speech: "On with the Bill and let joy be unconfined."
The Bill will be welcomed on all sides, but there are one or two points which many of us would wish to raise. The most important points are, first, that the benefits are now limited to those who, actuarially, contribute, and that is fair and reasonable; and second, as seems to me only right, that the maternity grant is to be payable before or after confinement, which also is not in the Report of the Advisory Committee. Thirdly, the important feature of the Bill is the new home confinement grant.
Although I cannot in any way claim the expertise of the right hon. Lady, who can speak in so many capacities, I thought it was a little unfair and unreasonable of her to suggest that for the sake, as she put it, of a few pounds mothers will choose to be confined at home when, for medical reasons, they ought to be confined in hospital. After all, it is pointed out in paragraph 32 of the Report that the various assessments of the cost of a home confinement range from £2 to £10, and they therefore conclude that £3 is a reasonable minimum figure.
If there is any truth in the suggestion of a much higher figure, it seems highly unlikely that anyone will, for the sake of

£3, be induced to have a confinement at home which ought to be in hospital. On the other hand, it will certainly even out what must seem to many people an inequity in the present conditions. Surely that is the real principle involved, and not the enforcing or inducing of anyone to have her confinement either at home or in hospital. We all look forward to the day when there will be as free a choice in this matter as the right hon. Lady mentioned.
Reference should also be made to other points in the last report of the Central Health Services Council. In referring to the increased proportion of confinements taking place in hospital, they say it is clear that this increase has been determined not by medical considerations alone, but partly by long-standing custom, and other reasons as well. The fact that this grant will be made to those who have their confinements at home will eliminate a quite reasonable amount of complaint.
There are one or two detailed queries I should like to put. I particularly welcome the presence on the Government Front Bench of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, who I hope will intervene in this debate and give the House some assurance that she is satisfied that, if there is any increase in the home confinements, the midwifery and home-help resources are available to cope with that increase.
I should like to raise with the Minister the question of the occupant of an amenity bed in a hospital. This grant will now be payable to anyone in a paying bed. Obviously it will be withdrawn from anyone enjoying completely free service. But what about the occupant of an amenity bed, who will be making some contribution towards the cost of her confinement? I also ask the Minister to look at the question of publicity which will be given during the transitional period under this Bill. Many of us know that the cases of injustice and inequity about which we write to the Ministry and get such sympathetic replies very often arise from lack of publicity. I hope that that will be completely avoided with this Bill, and that all reasonable and possible steps will be taken to forestall misunderstanding due to ignorance.
I really think the Minister is to be congratulated on bringing the Bill forward, and the right hon. Lady as well for


the part she played in referring the matter to the Committee. I think the Bill will receive a universal welcome in the country.

5.20 p.m.

Mrs. Jean Mann: I am very pleased indeed that the House is devoting a few hours to discussing the needs of the mothers of the nation. I have often thought, when I have seen the pressure groups at work on behalf of spinsters, on behalf of old-age pensioners, that it is a very great pity that young mothers have not time to organise pressure groups; they have not because they are so busy organising their lives and their families. There does not seem to be a group of politicians who foresee that when the principle of equal pay is put into operation—and I do not object to it at all—the mothers will be in a very poor position indeed, having the same pay to spread over husband, furniture, carpets, curtains, clothing for all the children, and food.
I therefore welcome this Bill and the discussion, but I hope that our thoughts will turn to inducing the Chancellor not only to accept the principle of equal pay, but also to raising the status of motherhood and raising the family allowances, so that the mothers of this country may enjoy the status of the mothers of France. I hope that the House will take these other measures at the same time, otherwise we shall have a very distinct social difference between the women of our country, with the mothers well at the back of the queue in the standard of living.
So far as it goes this is a good Bill, and if I criticise I hope it will be understood that I am not making my criticism in a party spirit at all. I notice that when the National Insurance Advisory Committee was set up its terms of reference stated:
To advise what changes, if any, should foe made in those provisions so as to secure that, without adding to the present liability of the National Insurance Fund in respect of maternity, the money shall be used to the best advantage.
So the responsibility falls on both sides of this House for the fact that the mothers were not to get any extra money, that the Committee's terms of reference strictly limited tie Committee to operating within the present liability of the National

Insurance Fund. Considering that, and considering the Report, I have no criticism with what hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have done. I do not know whether what they have given is more or less than would have been given had we been in power. I hope, therefore, that my remarks will not be misinterpreted.
While, apparently, £12 is a fairly good sum, because of the decreased value of the £ it compares with the £8 of 1946, I should think, at only about evens, so I really do not think the mothers are getting an increase. The right hon. Gentleman practically admitted that when he said he had added 25 per cent. in conjunction with the other allowances given in the last Budget. Those were given to help meet the increase in the cost of living, so I really do not think that our mothers are getting anything extra at all. unless the cost of living falls.
As to the £3, I do not know if this is an inducement to a mother to have her child at home. I had six children, all at home. I should have required an inducement to have gone into an institution, either a private nursing home or any other, because the coming of a child into our home was a great joy. Everyone looked forward to it, and when it did come poor father did not have to stand awaiting admission to see his little one. We all have great sympathy with the fathers in what they go through at such a time. Some day we may get a Fathers Bill, and I hope it will be accompanied by adequate analgesia that fathers also ought to get. In the events at home father could celebrate the occasion and bring all his friends, perhaps not upstairs but certainly downstairs. The event was celebrated night after night.
I was fortified by the regius professor of midwifery who, I could say, was the father of the Maternity Services (Scotland) Act, 1937, who said that domiciliary confinement was preferable to that at an institution provided all the conditions were there, provided it was accompanied by the necessary precautions accompanying the conduct of any surgical operation, although I have always tried to impress on my daughters and their friends that childbirth is a very natural thing indeed. Those who go into institutions separate themselves. There are those who can afford a private nursing home. There are those who can pay a little for a paying bed.
Then there are those who come from our slums, who, I am sorry to say, are put out at the eighth day. There are those who tell us that the mother who has her baby in the hospital is not put to any home expenses, but if she goes home at the eighth day she certainly needs help at home. She is in no condition to bath the baby morning and night and do the washing up, and she still needs attention herself. Therefore, I think the £3 is not sufficient.
I was very interested in an address given by Dr. Dugald Baird, Regius Professor of Midwifery in the University of Aberdeen, at the annual conference in London last year on Maternity and Child Welfare. I think that Professor Baird posed some problems which we in this House ought to face. Will this Bill, as it stands, reduce the infant mortality rate, and the neo-natal mortality rate? He told the conference that in 1939 the figure was 37 per 1,000 live births and that in 1948 it had fallen to 25. I am sure that the Government Front Bench want to see that figure fall still further; I am sure that they will be distressed to know that it varies with the social groups.
In 1947, it was 18 in Greater London, 20 in the rest of South-East England and 26 in the North of England. Glasgow had the worst neo-natal mortality rate of 28 per 1,000. When we divide the population into social groups—from class 1 to class 5—we find that in social class 1 the neo-natal mortality rate is 18.9, and it rises steadily until we reach class 5, when the rate is 30.1 per 1,000 births.
Professor Baird draws attention to national statistics. A low neo-natal mortality rate is, he says, found in Holland, in South-East England, where I understand there are the wealthiest social classes living, and social class 1 throughout Britain; and he says that the characteristic which is common to all three groups is a high standard of living. He states:
It would appear that under these conditions relatively few debilitated and premature babies are born. Hence the low death rate.
As I said, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are anxious to see that mortality rate still further reduced. I know that I am not striking a stone wall. I think that the Government ought to have another look at the dependants' allowances and also at

the allowance to the mother to induce her to leave work earlier. At present, she gets 36s. It is proposed to give her 32s. 6d. a week, but over a longer period —18 weeks instead of 11. If one considers the fall in the value of money, and the high cost of living, I do not think that that will help her to leave as early as she should.
Let us consider the social classes. There is in the House a mother who remained here—and I admired her for it, I thought she was a brick—and took her place on these benches almost up to within a month of her confinement, and she carried it off very well. If we look at another mother, such as my right hon. Friend mentioned, the woman who is a bus conductor, or the woman who cleans, etc., she cannot choose her job, she has to take what job she can get, and she requires more inducement to leave earlier. She needs to leave that kind of work much earlier than other women in sedentary occupations.
I appeal to the Minister about the dependants. So much sympathy goes out to widows, and I think we have still a lot more to do for widows in our National Insurance scheme. One always hears of the widow, especially the poor widow, and while I do not for a moment wish to detract from the sympathy due to her I say that there is someone who requires even more sympathy financially. I refer to the woman who has been supporting an invalid husband. I find a great many of them in my constituency. These are the women who have to stay at their work until the last month of pregnancy, and who are supporting a husband who is ill at home, and the family as well. I should like to see that 21s. 6d. raised so that she shall be in the position that her husband would be if he was in work and she were ill at home.
With these remarks, I welcome the Bill. I am sorry that it was not introduced sooner, and I should be glad if there could be second thoughts along the lines which I have indicated.

5.36 p.m.

Brigadier O. L. Prior-Palmer: I should like to add my congratulations to the Minister for introducing this excellent Bill, which, I am sure, will have the support of all sides of the House. I am sorry that the right hon.


Lady the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill) had to preface her remarks by introducing an element of party politics. I wish she was present. I should have liked her to do one other thing. She said she wished to forestall Conservative candidates from taking credit for this in their election speeches and addresses. I wish she had forestalled Labour candidates in their election addresses at the last Election from claiming credit for the last Labour Government for the introduction of milk-in-schools scheme, which was introduced, I think, in 1936, and also for holidays with pay, which was introduced about the same time.
May I follow the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) in one or two of the things she said? With what she said about sympathy for the husband, I entirely agree. I remember a doctor once saying to a husband who was particularly worried, "My dear sir, don't worry, I haven't lost a husband yet." I agree with the hon. Lady on a serious point—

Dr. Stross: I used to say that also, but is the hon. and gallant Member aware that we had a case recently—about six months ago—in which a father died as a result of anxiety?

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I trust that the hon. Gentleman was not in charge of the case.
I should like to follow the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie on a serious point—the question of having children in the home. I have had only one experience of a child having been born in hospital, and I swore from that day that I would not agree to it again unless there were exceptional circumstances. I believe, with the hon. Lady, that the right place for women to have their children is in the home.
During the Budget debate last year, I raised the question of allowances for the first child of the marriage. As a result of that I fully realise that the sum involved was so vast as to make it an impracticable proposition to give in respect of the first child of the marriage the same family allowances as those that are given in the case of the second and subsequent children. Therefore, on the occasion of the National Insurance Bill in May last

year, I evolved what I considered to be a fairly ingenious solution of this problem. I put the idea forward to my right hon. Friend at that time, and it was this: I suggested that when the Bill which we are discussing today was introduced there should be, in the form of a maternity grant, the equivalent of a family allowance of 8s. for the first child a week for one year, to be paid in a lump sum. That works out roughly at £20.
I do not wish to recapitulate all the various arguments of which there are many in regard to this plea, except to say that, obviously, the first child is the most expensive from the point of view of buying clothes, the pram and the layout of the layette. With the second child these things are nearly always handed on; therefore, the second child is by no means such an expense in the initial stages.
There is one further point on that. A married couple, before the arrival of their first child, are probably both working, so the woman has a double burden: she has the added expense of the new infant and she has the reduction in her income to compete with as well. So I think that there is a very strong case concerning a large proportion of our population for the encouragement of the first child, and not only the encouragement but to make sure that life is a little easier when this the most happy of all happy events occurs.
I think that it would be a very good thing also to encourage the first child— because once started it is apt to become a habit and we want to see plenty of families in this country. Therefore, I am only making a very short speech on this subject today as I propose to table an Amendment in the Committee stage to give effect to this suggestion, and I am very confident that that Amendment will be accepted because I will quote the words of the Parliamentary Secretary, in winding up the debate last year on the National Insurance Bill, when, referring to my suggestion, he said:
I was interested to hear the suggestion made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worthing that this should be included in some improvements in the system of maternity allowance. I can assure him that we will give consideration to that proposal in due course. … I certainly think it deserves consideration."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th May, 1952; Vol. 500, c. 142.]
He has had a year to consider the matter —which is very rapid, I suppose, for a


Government Department—but I look forward with great confidence to his assistance, or that of his Department, in framing the Amendment which I propose to table.

5.43 p.m.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop: I should like to begin by apologising to the Minister for my inability to hear the speech with which he opened this debate. I want to refer to certain matters particularly in relation to the home confinement grant as it affects some of our health problems and particularly as it affects some of our vital statistics for maternal mortality and neo-natal mortality rates.
I think it very natural that the House should concentrate on this aspect of the Bill, although, of course, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill) said, there are many other matters of very real importance in dealing with the more strictly insurance aspect of the Bill. I want to refer particularly to this aspect of home confinement, because it is a matter upon which many of us have had to give consideration both officially and privately, if I may put it that way.
I think that we would agree that all of us in this House are very happy indeed at the great improvements that have been made over recent years in the maternal and neo-natal mortality rates, and are all desperately anxious that these improvements should continue. Therefore, we are anxious to see what effect, if any, the proposals in this Bill will have upon those figures.
I know that there are many of my hon. Friends, and, may be, many hon. Members on both sides of the House, who are anxious lest these proposals should encourage mothers who should on medical or other grounds go to hospital to have their confinements at home. That is clearly a matter upon which none of us can be at all certain and we shall certainly have to watch the developments following the application of this Measure with great care to see what is happening, and whether there is or not an increasing number of cases of those who, on medical grounds, ought to go to hospital for confinement preferring to stay at home. I hope that will not arise but it is a danger which we have to watch and be very careful about.
I should, in particular, like to know whether, in framing the Estimate for the expense of this Measure, any provision has been made for an increased number of home confinements and whether it is officially expected that there will be an increase or not. I cannot help feeling that we must expect some increase, although it is too early to say just how that will work out.
On the other hand, some of my hon. Friends seem to take the view that ideally every confinement ought to take place in hospital. That is not the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann), who adheres to the view—as, on the whole, I do-that, provided all the circumstances are satisfactory—and that is a very big proviso—home confinements could be and, indeed, should be as satisfactory as, if not more satisfactory than, confinements in hospital.
I should like to quote in aid of that point the position that has arisen in New York. There, it is stated that 99 per cent. of the confinements are in hospital and 1 per cent. in the taxi going to hospital. Those figures are probably very nearly accurate. What I found in New York was the great anxiety, particularly among medical men, that the period of time spent in hospital was so short. In many cases it is not a question of the mother leaving hospital after eight days but very often of leaving hospital after three days, and complications were arising which were giving great anxiety to many people in the medical profession in America. This is not only true of New York, but elsewhere in America.
Although that problem is not so acute in this country, it is a problem. When I was at the Ministry of Health we were finding quite a number of hospitals that —because of pressure on accommodation—were encouraging or, at any rate, were allowing mothers to leave hospital certainly under the 10 days which is usually regarded as the desirable period. Indeed, I well remember the circular which was sent out, which is quoted in the Report of the Ministry of Health for the year 1951 and which was sent out towards the end of 1950, relating to guidance to hospital authorities.
It urged that a proper balance ought to be kept between home and hospital


confinements, and that it should be insisted upon that all medical needs should be properly met by hospital confinements and all social needs, too, where home conditions are clearly unsatisfactory, and a hospital should not allow, certainly in normal cases, the mother to leave hospital in under 10 days after the confinement, except in special circumstances where everyone was satisfied that the mother was fully recovered.
I think, therefore, that we may be in some danger if we press for extending the use of hospital facilities for confinements of getting the second best. We may find that, through pressure on hospital facilities, shorter stays in hospital are being accepted as reasonable, and that, in consequence, mothers may be less satisfactorily treated than they would be if they had their confinements at home. That is a matter which we must bear in mind.
There are, however, other matters that we must watch very carefully. Above all, we must see how this operates in bad housing areas, the sort of areas we know so well, where, clearly, the home conditions are not satisfactory for confinement to take place. I would remind hon. Members that the proportion of domiciliary confinements is sometimes higher in these less satisfactory areas than in other areas. Therefore, we must watch very carefully the effect of this new monetary provision in those areas above all others. It must be our anxiety to ensure that there the encouragement should, quite properly, be for hospital confinement rather than for home confinement.
I am not suggesting that in many cities where home conditions may not be satisfactory some first-class domiciliary services have not been built up. We know they have. There is a world of difference between the provisions now available in many cities from what they were some years ago. Some cities now have first-class flying squad units for dealing, for example, with premature births. In my own City of Newcastle-upon-Tyne we are very proud of our very good domiciliary service which has been built up. It is amazing what good work can be done by such a service.
Normally, we must try to ensure that those who are living in difficult housing circumstances are given every opportunity for hospital treatment, or, alternatively, that our domiciliary services, which are patchy at the moment in some areas, though very good in others, are built up to a much higher general level. Unless we do that we should view this provision with caution and anxiety.
The second point concerns the position in the rural areas, where we know that at the moment the proportion of domiciliary confinements is much higher than in the rest of the country. As a general rule the proportion of hospital confinements in the cities is higher than in the rural areas. I believe there is a very great variation as between one area and another as regards hospital confinements, ranging from 30 per cent. in some areas to 70 per cent. in others. The national average at the present time is, I believe, about 63 per cent. Those are the latest figures I have.
It is in the rural areas that the domiciliary services are not all that we would like them to be, and, therefore, it is particularly important that we should devote a great deal of attention to the circumstances in those areas to ensure that the services are built up to meet the existing needs of the large number of mothers who have their children at home. One thing which has become quite clear is that the remaining problem connected with maternity is the mortality rate associated with premature births. Some very interesting surveys have been made officially about this for the Ministry of Health. Therefore, in considering this Bill we must think in terms of the premature child.
The neo-natal mortality rates in connection with premature births are much higher than in any other field of confinement. I think it is true to say that for the country as a whole about 29 per cent. of premature births take place at home and about 68 per cent. in hospital. It seems to be the consensus of opinion that wherever possible these births should take place in hospital rather than at home, but there are obvious reasons why that is difficult. In many cases the premature child is immediately transferred to hospital, but it is generally agreed that that is not nearly so satisfactory as the birth


taking place in hospital, and, indeed, may not be so satisfactory as attention by a proper domiciliary service once the birth has taken place at home. That is another sphere in which we must give special care and attention.
I am a little anxious because I notice in the Estimates for the Ministry of Health—I know how unreliable those Estimates can be—that lesser provision is made for the coming year as against last year for the care of mothers and young children in the local authority health services, and rather less provision for midwifery services. I know that the simple answer to that is that the birthrate is falling. I grant that, but, at the same time, if what I have been saying is correct—and I think it is—that we urgently need to improve the standard of our domiciliary services in many parts of the country, then we must ensure that more and not less money is made available for those services.
The provision per child is the same as before; there is no expansion. Before we leave the Bill we ought to be fully satisfied that before any steps are taken which may encourage mothers to have their children at home instead of going to hospital, the domiciliary services are suitably expanded in areas where they are not satisfactory at the present time.
I appeal to the Ministry of Health, because this is a matter which concerns them very directly, to ensure that a proper balance is maintained between domiciliary and hospital confinements. I do not think we should suggest that all confinements need necessarily take place in hospital, but we should ensure a proper and fair balance between the two, and that where on medical and social grounds it is necessary for confinements to take place in hospital, we should see that the monetary incentives do not prevent their so taking place. Where confinements take place at home, we must also ensure that still higher standards are set for our domiciliary services throughout the country than exist at present.

5.59 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I welcome this Bill for a number of reasons, the first of which will take me over much of the ground that has just been so ably traversed by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East

(Mr. Blenkinsop), that is, the relation between this Bill and the hospital service inside the National Health Service. Perhaps the greatest problem facing the Health Service at the present time is how to secure the most effective utilisation of the hospital beds, both maternity and general, which are available.
Any Measure which tends to take outside the hospital service cases which can be dealt with at least as effectively in the home is a contribution to the efficiency of the Health Service itself. The extra grant of £3 for home confinement which is provided in this Bill works in that direction by removing a financial obstacle to domiciliary confinements; for that, I believe, is the correct way in which to describe the effect of the £3 grant.
I agree with much that the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East said, and I was more in sympathy with his approach to this problem than I was with that of the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill) in regard to the necessity for ensuring that the type of case and the type of circumstances in which confinements take place at home are the right ones, because this is essentially a matter which the circumstances of each case and of each home must decide.
The question can be very simply put. Is the sum of £3, which is provided in this Bill, too much or too little? If it is too much, then the weighting of the scales is unduly in favour of home confinement. If it is too little, it will not have the effect which we all desire. Unless and until experience shows that the sum of £3 is excessive and thus an undue premium upon home confinement, then I think we ought to conclude that its effect will only be to remove the existing financial barrier against home confinement in cases where home confinement would be appropriate.
The House should not forget that there is a very strong body of professional opinion which believes that the present proportion of hospital confinements, is, upon the whole, too high. The Royal College of Nursing made representations on this subject about two years ago to the Ministry of Health, and I should like to quote from their letter to the Ministry, because it deals with a number of points


which have been raised in this debate. It says:
This country has a record of successful domiciliary midwifery, and mothers delivered at home are visited and helped by the midwife for 14 days, whereas those delivered in hospital are frequently discharged five to eight days after delivery.
That is a point which has already been made in the debate, and I think it was the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East who referred to the anxiety of hospitals to get rid of maternity cases as one of the possible factors in favour of domiciliary confinement in suitable circumstances. This letter also states:
While there is such an acute shortage of hospital beds, persons suffering from tuberculosis, and the aged sick, should have prior claim to hospital care. Many maternity wards in general hospitals are not staffed entirely by midwives, and State registered nurses, nursing midwifery cases, should be released for general nursing.
So the Royal College of Nursing recommended to the Ministry of Health that steps should be taken to promote domiciliary confinement in suitable cases.
Again, the Association of Hospital Management Committees, two years ago, wrote to the Minister of Health:
This demand for hospital maternity beds is bolstered up by the fact that there is a financial incentive for mothers to have their babies in hospital. The Association therefore recommends that some financial inducement should be given to mothers who have their babies at home.
It is, of course, a matter of striking a balance. There must be no financial weight in either scale. The decision must be taken on the grounds of the case and of the circumstances. I do not think that anyone in this debate has sought to argue that the sum of £3 provided by the Bill is excessive, or is likely to place undue emphasis upon domiciliary confinements.
Another feature of the Bill which I welcome is its restoration to the maternity allowance of the full insurance principle. Hon. Members, certainly on this side of the House, and I think most hon. Members generally, attach very great value to the insurance principle in our national insurance scheme. Of course, no system of national insurance can be literally and actuarially an insurance scheme in the sense that a private insurance scheme is. Nevertheless, for those participating it is

important that contributions and benefits should be kept in a definite and evident relationship, and that the boundary line between insurance benefits which are earned by contributions and assistance benefits which are the ultimate succour of the community should be as plainly drawn as possible.
There was an infraction of the insurance principle in the scheme of maternity allowances as it stands at present, in that the maternity allowance could be earned by a working woman who had deliberately decided not to pay the contributions, and that in spite of the fact that the actuarial basis of the maternity allowance was the contributions paid by employed and self-employed women. That discrepancy is removed by this Bill, which makes the maternity allowances dependent upon the fulfilment of contribution conditions.
A further approximation to the full insurance principle is also contained in the new graduated scales of maternity allowances, whereby, instead of the allowances being wholly lost if the contribution conditions are not 100 per cent. fulfilled, a graduated allowance, proportionate to the contributions which have, in fact, been paid, can be obtained by the expectant mother. Both those alterations bring the maternity allowance well and truly within the scope of the insurance scheme.
It seems to me that the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West was under a misapprehension when she referred, in this connection, to paragraph 16 of the Report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee. She drew attention to the statement in that Report that
the statutory authorities who decide claims to benefit do not accept a certificate of normal pregnancy as evidence of incapacity except for the six weeks before the expected confinement.
She went on to argue that my right hon. Friend's action in substituting 50 for 45 contributions as the number required to qualify for the full maternity allowance would somehow prejudice the position of expectant women in employment.
This Bill, however, in no way alters the decision made by the statutory authorities deciding claims. It will still be the case that a pregnant woman, who, merely by reason of her pregnancy, ceases to be in employment or stays away from work earlier than 11 weeks before the


expected week of confinement, will not qualify for sickness benefit on that account. That is just as much the case if the figure of 45 contributions had been accepted as it now is with the figure of 50 contributions. There is no difference at all, and there is no relevance in the sixteenth paragraph of this Report in relation to the choice between 45 or 50 contributions as the qualification for maternity allowance.
Finally, I come to the amount of the various benefits provided or increased by the Bill. I welcome the implementation once again, as in the National Insurance Act of last year, of the principle of uniform benefits. If the insurance scheme is designed to be a safeguard against the loss of earnings from whatsoever cause, whether it be maternity or unemployment or sickness or retirement, it is quite illogical that different scales of benefit should be provided to meet this same contingency. It was only right, therefore, that the expectant mother, who is now to be enabled and induced to give up work for 11 weeks before the expected date of her confinement, should have her loss of earnings replaced by the same sum as that to which she would have been entitled in the event of sickness or unemployment.
Under the scales introduced last year that is 32s. 6d. a week. In what I thought was a rather ungenerous speech the right hon. Lady said that the increases—which include, I assume, that increased figure of 32s. 6d. which was fixed last year and to which the maternity allowance is being assimilated by this Bill—related to a rise in the cost of living which had taken place prior to the middle of 1952. She said that they do nothing to meet subsequent rises and the present cost of living.

Dr. Summerskill: If the hon. Gentleman is quoting me, he is entirely wrong. I did not mention prior to 1952. I mentioned the cost of living and said that it anticipated a future increase.

Mr. Powell: Then I understand the criticism to have been that these benefits are related to the present cost of living and do not anticipate a prospective increase in it?

Dr. Summerskill: I have just told the hon. Gentleman that I said it.

Mr. Powell: I am much obliged. That illustrates the difference between the situation of the present Government and their predecessors.
Of course, the previous Government, when they brought in a new scale, had to assume that their financial policy would produce its natural effects, and that they should allow for a prospective further increase in the cost of living. The present Government are under no such obligation. If my right hon. Friend can show, as he can, that these benefits are related to the existing cost of living, then he is entitled to point to the stability of the cost-of-living index over the last nine months as evidence that they will also meet the needs of those they are designed to help in the coming months and years.
I have gone to some trouble to be quite sure that the benefits recommended in the Report of 15 months ago, and those assimilated to the benefits of the National Insurance Act, 1952, are fully in line with movements of prices. I have tested a range of prices and articles likely to be bought with the maternity grant. The result is that, on balance, in the last 18 months the cost of a confinement has certainly not increased and may have fallen slightly. Articles such as prams, which have increased in cost, have been offset by others which have fallen in cost.
For example, there has been a decrease of 5s. or 6s. a dozen in the cost of babies' nappies and a decrease of an average of £1 in the cost of a cot. Therefore, as my right hon. Friend has related these benefits to the cost of living as it stood in the middle of 1952, and as the cost-of-living index has not altered appreciably since that date, and as the articles involved have only undergone alterations which, upon the whole, are self-balancing, he can claim that these benefits fully meet the requirements of today.
I conclude, then, by welcoming the Bill and wishing it a successful passage to the Statute Book.

6.15 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross: I have no prejudices against this Bill because it was conceived by one side of the House and delivered by the other; nor, indeed, because the conception was, as it were, that of one Minister, who is truly feminine, and the


child was shyly delivered by a man midwife today. The fact is that it has now been safely delivered after a long gestation. Again, that does not seem to matter. Even elephants have to wait 15 months before they are born and we have saved a month, because it is 14 months—

Mr. Peake: Elephants have to wait three years.

Dr. Stross: Then we have done better than a mother elephant and I am glad to be corrected.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) made, in part, a thoughtful speech until he came to the defence of his own party. I agreed with him when he said that the £3 we have been discussing is, we hope, exactly the right figure; if it is not, we hope it will be altered. We do not want it offered as a bribe to make a woman who should go to hospital stay at home. On the other hand, we do not want it to be so little that it has no influence.
When I look at the figures I find that as between £27 8s. and £38 5s. for a woman who is doing paid work, there is a real advance which must have caught up any rise we have had in the cost of living these last few years. Again, the figure of £41 5s. for the fully insured woman who is confined at home is a real help even for the first child. The fact that the Minister told us in his opening speech, and later in his interventions, that a woman who may be ill from the third month can still be considered to be entitled to full benefit if she has the necessary certificates—and I am sure in such cases she would get them—gives me a good deal of reassurance.
My past experience, naturally, was concerned with meeting many cases of that type, as was the experience of the former Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill). She, however, made statements with which I was not entirely in agreement. Sometimes I did not agree with the emphasis probably because, being a woman midwife, she thinks she knows all about it.

Dr. H. Morgan: She does.

Dr. Stross: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will not mind my putting this to her: that until men midwives came into this field of endeavour women had trundled their confinement stools round from house to house for centuries, or for thousands of years, and there had been no advance. Not until Ambrose Paré was used by Louis XV to assist in the birth of a child, either of his mistress or wife, did we make a step forward in the general technique of midwifery. It was men who invented forceps and it is men who are giving them up. The men nutritionists have shown the way in which women can be protected during pregnancy and thus be easily delivered.

Dr. Summerskill: Is my hon. Friend trying to provoke me?

Dr. Stross: Of course. I know that my right hon. Friend agrees with me that a suitable or good obstetric service is not the prime factor in having women safely delivered, getting healthy children, and in saving the lives of mothers and their children. It is seeing to it that they are well nourished throughout pregnancy and before it. Quoting from memory, I remember the Rhondda experiment in the early '30s. We were disturbed because the maternal mortality rate in that tragic and depressed area was so high. The Government at that time did their best by making it possible to have the best medical care for every pregnant woman, but the results were no better. Year after year it was tried and still there was no improvement. Then, someone thought that when these women were pregnant, they might be offered a substantial meal once a day, because it was discovered that they could not afford it. The results were at once remarkable.
Then, in Sheffield, Melanby and his wife did some work in the out-patient department of one of the great hospitals, dividing the expectant mothers into two groups and watching them in the last month or two of their pregnancy. They gave to one group a little extra nutrition by way of milk, calcium and the vitamins A and D that are needed, and left the other group alone. The difference was that whereas in the untreated group mothers died at the rate of 6 per 10,000 births, in those who were treated in this way, at a cost of a few shillings a head, the figure fell to 1.1 per 10,000 births,


which was a spectacular improvement. That is why we give the necessary social service to all expectant women who ask for it, and we give it to them free of charge.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Tell them about Stoke.

Dr. Snmmerskill: I fully appreciate the importance of nutrition and the rest, but why was it that Queen Anne lost all her 14 children at birth?

Dr. Stross: To reply to that might be extremely delicate, because I should have to go into what happened also to the Tudors and why there were so many miscarriages, premature births and early deaths. I do not, however, intend at this stage to discuss pathology or infectious blood conditions.

Mr. Smith: This is the House of Commons, not a hospital.

Dr. Stross: I have only stressed the nutritional aspect because I think it is in the forefront, Obviously, a well nourished people will face any simple physiological feature like pregnancy and delivery more easily and safely than people who are not well fed. I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, West that people must also be given the very best possible obstetric service, but it takes second place. If we have to choose between the one and the other and we could not afford to have both, there should be no mistake about which we choose first if we want healthy women and children.
The question of having confinements in the home or in hospital is a vexed one and we cannot be excessively dogmatic about it with any certainty. If we were, I am sure we would be wrong. Experience, however, shows that the most anxious time is the birth of the first child. Therefore, the tendency for thoughtful people is to say that, obviously, a greater percentage of first babies ought to be born in hospital than of succeeding babies. If the mother can prove, by having her first baby, that she can normally and safely deliver herself, there is nothing to prevent subsequent normal delivery.
My view is that the woman who has never yet delivered herself and is pregnant should, as it were, have a right to

say, "I am nervous and frightened, in spite of all the reassurances you have given me. I would like to ask to be delivered in hospital this first time." The second delivery is, of course, an entirely different matter. Assuming that there has been no pathological condition, such as a contracted pelvis, making delivery very difficult, or almost impossible or even dangerous to mother and child, there are only certain other minor or secondary contingencies. I should put them as "secondary" because they are not really minor.
For example, we must demand proper pre-natal care. Even if a woman has had one child or two, or even 10, easily and safely, that does not mean that the third or fourth or the eleventh may not show complications and that she does not need careful supervision during the whole time, and certainly in the last month or two. If, however, no complication is noted while she is carrying, there should be no undue difficulty provided that a suitable room is available in a reasonably suitable house. I use the adjective "reasonable" because homes differ tremendously.
A home that does not have a water supply is not suitable. If hot water is not easily available at any rate in a town, I do not consider it a suitable home. In rural areas, where there may not be hot water except that which it boiled on the kitchen stove or open fire, it is a different matter. I have managed often enough, of course, without such facilities. I certainly did not have hot water laid on when I was delivering women in barges on canals, which I did quite often.
The main requirements which are asked for are a room for the woman which she can have for herself for the 10 days or fortnight, hot water during the accouchement, proper ante-natal care, a really skilled midwife whom, the mother has got to know and who has watched her, and a medical man with real experience on call in case he is wanted but who should, if possible, be kept out of sight and never used. I am sure that my right hon. Friend, who has had so much experience, will agree that doctors are not wanted too soon.

Dr. Summerskill: I thought that my hon. Friend was all in favour of men.

Dr. Stross: That does not mean that I cannot have my right hon. Friend agreeing with me.
In the old days, of course, those of us who had experience were anxious to keep women at home because of the risk of infection in the hospitals. I do not know whether hon. Members know that, but the risk of infection in the hospitals was always greater than in the home. The reason is a simple one. My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) knows this, having had so many sons who are doctors.
What used to happen, of course, was that women, however dirty and impoverished their homes, were used, as it were, to the flora and fauna of the bacteria growing in their own environment, and therefore they were not infected. When they were scrubbed and taken away to hospital, where everything was clean and marvellous, if one particular germ to which they were not accustomed came their way they would be infected, with the result that there were epidemics and deaths in the days before there were anti-biotics. For these reasons, people like myself, partly through teaching and partly from experience, knew that by and large it was safer to keep people at home. Now, of course, the situation is different. With the presence of new anti-biotics, this question of infection no longer matters, because we can control it at any level and in any place. That is not to say that we want it ever to occur, but it does not have too great an importance today.
There is another reason why the woman may well feel better if she has her first baby at home—assuming that the home is suitable and that all the other things which I have been describing are available for her: that is, the psychological reason. After all, the wife who is an expectant mother is the queen of her home. It is her nest. She builds it together, with the help of her husband, for the children who are to come.
I am sure that everybody in the House knows what this entails. There are the ceremonial visits after the three days are over, the congratulations of everybody round about, and the tremendous fuss that is made, none of which can happen in hospital. Moreover, it is a good thing for a man to know what his woman has

gone through in delivering herself of her child; it helps him to know. If there is a little wetting of the baby's head by way of celebration, that, too, is not a bad thing either. At any rate, in my experience, the delivery of a child in its own home was a time of rejoicing and of congratulation; the mother really took her place as the most important person imaginable in the home—and so, indeed, she is.
I am glad to see that this period is extended to 18 weeks instead of the original 11 or 12 weeks. I am not so concerned with the fact that we are now only offering 32s. 6d. a week as I am concerned with the fact that if we give 11 weeks' freedom for delivery we shall be acting absolutely correctly and properly. Even then I agree with what has been said from this side of the House by more than one hon. Member, that in certain occupations even 11 weeks is not enough. I know the Minister appreciates that point and will give it consideration. It might be possible to consider exceptions according to occupation. I do not know, but that is a Committee point and I will leave it at this stage.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie spoke of civilisation being judged by infantile mortality. It may have been mentioned by another hon. Member, but my hon. Friend quoted some figures about it. There was one thing which she did not quote, but which I think is accurate; that is that at Southgate the infantile mortality rate is 15. That is very magnificent, as they have a population of 70,000 to 80,000. We should never be content until we have practically no neo-natal mortality at all. Neo-natal mortality could be reduced enormously, but we have to work on the generation before. We have to bring up a generation so fit and well that there are no bony or skeletal abnormalities. We have to make certain that they have proper care and that there is a proper obstetric midwifery service always available.
I have every hope and expectation in welcoming this Bill that it will be looked upon only as a beginning, or, if hon. Members like, the second stage of something which should reach far into the distance when we shall be horrified and surprised if ever a child is born prematurely or dead, or if any woman takes hurt when she is confined.

6.32 p.m.

Mrs. Alice Cullen: Like all other hon. Members, I welcome the Bill, but I have one or two comments to make about it. I am a great believer in hospital confinements, and it is my experience of the constituency which I represent that makes me feel in that way. I have a feeling and fear that this confinement grant will encourage women to stay at home when they have not the facilities, because just now, with the high cost of living and other costs, they will be encouraged to stay at home in order to get a few pounds more.
If some hon. Members knew the conditions which prevail in certain constituencies amongst ordinary working-class people they would feel just as I do. Often a woman living in a single apartment house is not having her first confinement, her second, nor her third, but it may be the fifth or the sixth. She has not the bedclothes she would like to have when she knows that the doctor and the nurse are coming in, and that worries her very much. She has three or four other children running about the house. In three days' time she is sitting up in bed having children handed into the bed for washing and getting ready for school. All these conditions prevail in slum areas. I am prepared to say that in the constituency I represent at this moment there is not one home in 100 in which there should be a confinement.
I have lived among these people, and I want to relate one or two incidents. I used to live in the ward I represent among ordinary working-class people who had all these worries about confinements because they had not got facilities. We had a prominent doctor in Glasgow who told us that sometimes when he went into a home half the family had to be removed before he could start his job in these poky little places. On many occasions in my home I have had a pair of sheets, blankets, a top bed mat, a small white basin, a white towel and a cake of soap to carry to a home where I knew those things were not available and the woman was worried because she did not have those things when the doctor was coming. They were kept in my home for years in order to help people in such districts.
I do not want to take the time of the House because I know others want to speak, but I want to tell hon. Members

of the fear I have that these grants will encourage people to stay at home for confinements when they have not facilities. I am a believer in hospital confinements, but there are lots of improvements which could be made there. I do not think it right to send the mother out of the hospital eight days after confinement. She ought to have 10 or 14 days there. My mother used to keep us in bed and would not allow us out of bed until after the tenth day because she said there was a danger, if everything were not back in its place by that time. Lots of people cannot even have a taxi to take them home. I know of a hospital where the ambulance is seen bringing them to the gate. Then the man and the mother lead his wife down and take her home, but she ought to be in hospital for another couple of days until she is able to come back and look after the home.
Hon. Members have stressed the point that the woman ought to have a room to herself, and I agree. She ought to have a bathroom in the house, but how many bathrooms are there in the Gorbals? Not one of the slums is being cleared away; there are no signs of the slums being cleared away. It will be years before home confinements will be advisable in the division I represent. I hope that the Minister will say that when people want to be confined at home and they have not the facilities they must go to hospital. I very much fear that this grant will do the very thing we do not want it to do—encourage people, because of the extra few pounds which they need, to stay at home when they ought to go to hospital.

6.38 p.m.

Mr. Richard Fort: I am pleased to follow the hon. Lady the Member for Gorbals (Mrs. Cullen) because, like here, I have noticed the tendency, with the pressure on the maternity sections of hospitals at present, to allow women to leave hospitals very much earlier than I should like to see my wife up and about after a confinement. In my constituency, where we have a leading maternity hospital in the area, the pressure is so great that mothers are having to go out after a week. I think it is not only one's experience in the matter but the feeling of doctors that that is inadvisable.
I am bound to say, however, that I noticed what seems to be a strongly marked difference of opinion between those who have spoken on the other side of the House. The hon. Member for Gorbals and the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill) seemed to be so anxious to see women confined in hospital that they left some doubt in my mind whether they even welcome the extra £3 which will be given in view of the fact that they consider there is a real danger that it might induce women to be confined at home.

Dr. Summerskill: I listened to my hon. Friend, and I thought that she and I were in complete agreement.

Mr. Fort: I am sorry if I have not made myself clear. I think that the right hon. Lady and the hon. Lady are in complete agreement. They seemed to imply that they were rather fearful about giving the extra grant in case it induced more women to have their children at home instead of having them in the maternity wards of hospitals.
They have left in my mind the uncertainty whether within themselves, whatever they may say on political platforms on this subject—and I think the right hon. Lady will say plenty on political platforms—they are very doubtful whether the grant will have the effect that they consider to be medically undesirable, namely, that of inducing women to have confinements at home instead of in hospitals. I think that before this debate finishes we might hear from other speakers on the other side of the House who will make their party's viewpoint on this matter rather clearer than it is to me at the moment.
Another Member on the other side of the House with medical qualifications seemed to me to strike the balance, which as a layman I think is desirable in this matter. There has been a great increase in hospital confinements. The numbers have risen from just over 390,000 in 1949 to more than 440,000 in 1951. I should like to know—I do not know whether the figures are available—how much of that increase has been accounted for by first babies being delivered in hospitals and how much of the increase has been due to babies after the first. In my experience—and I have quite a large family—

it was the first baby which it was desirable should be born in hospital. Our second and later babies were born in hospital, but could just as well have been delivered at home.
In view of the fact that we have this pressure on the maternity wards, one would hope to see, as a result of the new arrangements, an encouragement towards home confinement for those who can reasonably have their children at home because they know that they will have an easy confinement and because their home conditions are not the horrible ones which undoubtedly exist in the Gorbals and other parts of our big cities. One would hope that those who can have their children at home will feel that they will now receive some additional compensation for the rise in costs and the undoubted expense of having a home confinement. As a result beds will be released for those women who undoubtedly ought to have their children in hospital, particularly those having first children. I hope that will be one of the effects of this new grant.
We should have a clear statement from the Opposition whether they are, as a party, in favour of the new grant or whether they consider that by and large the new grant is not particularly welcomed by them in view of the effect which it may have of keeping at home women who ought to be in hospital for the delivery of their children.

Mrs. Cullen: I was trying to make hon. Members understand that in the constituency that I represent, there is no possibility of women having home confinements because there is not one home in 100 fit to have home confinements in.

Mr. Fort: I conclude, therefore, that, so far as the hon. Lady's constituency is concerned, she is against the additional grant.

Mrs. Cullen: No, I am not against it, I am in favour of it. I was pointing out, however, that in my division there is pure slumdom and nothing has been done for years for those people living in slums. I have referred to some of the conditions. Would any Member opposite like to see his wife confined in a single-apartment house, with five or six children running around? I will give another example. If I went down a street at


night, and saw a man standing in the close with two children, and with nowhere to go, I would know that the doctor had sent him out while his wife was being confined.

Mr. Fort: I hope that the effect of this £3 will not be to encourage home confinements under those conditions, but that it will encourage those reasonably able to have their children at home to do so—that those who can balance the considerations in their mind will be persuaded not to occupy hospital beds and so enable those who live under the conditions which the hon. Lady has described, those who are to have first babies and those who know that they will have difficult confinements, to have the beds which may be released as the result of this new grant.
Because I believe that the new grant will achieve a rather better balance than we are getting at present, with the tremendous pressure there is on the maternity hospitals throughout the country, I give the Bill a warm welcome on Second Reading. At the same time, I say that there are Committee points which may well improve the Bill further.

6.47 p.m.

Mr. David J. Pryde: As one whose following in 1912 was an official of a very powerful and influential friendly society, it fell to my lot to operate the first Insurance Act, and, in doing so, I was compelled to go into many working-class homes. According to my reading of this Bill, we are dealing very largely with the women of the working class. I do not intend to be controversial tonight.
I welcome this Measure, and divide the honours between my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill) and the present Minister. They have both done a very good job, and I witnessed ample appreciation of that recently at a meeting in my constituency in the good old ducal town of Dalkeith, when it was reported that the right hon. Member for Fulham, West had a certain amount of justification for saying that she had done something for our womenfolk.
I deprecate the introduction by two Members opposite of party politics. The hon. and gallant Member for Worthing

(Brigadier Prior-Palmer) introduced party politics in criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann), a lady who has ample opportunity to deal with the question of maternity. She is the last person whom the hon. and gallant Gentleman should have criticised.
The hon. and gallant Member denied the fact that in the year 1906 that small and gallant band of Labour Members got the then Liberal majority to put into operation the first school milk Bill. He is credited with having said that the Conservatives had a plan for unemployment but he did not know whether it would work or not. I can assure the hon. and gallant Member tonight that it has worked very effectively in my constituency. For over a year at least 10 mills there have been working on short time, so the hon. and gallant Member's unemployment plan is working very well.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I did not mention the word "unemployment." I was not referring to the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie, but to the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West. Now that she is here I should like to repeat what I said. She said that she wished to forestall any Conservative candidate from taking credit at the next Election for this Bill. I ask her to remember that certain Labour candidates in their last election addresses had claimed that the last Labour Government had introduced meals in schools and holidays with pay, both of which were introduced before the war.

Mr. Pryde: I have never heard of Labour Members claiming that we introduced holidays with pay. It is true that before the war 8 million people had holidays with pay and we considerably increased the number.
I heard the hon. Member for Wolver-hampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) tell the House that he also welcomed the Measure. I was glad about that because when I heard his preceding remarks I thought, from the vitriol he introduced, that he was opposed to the Bill. The Measure is not one to go into ecstasies over. It is, however, a step in the right direction. When hon. Members opposite talk of what the Labour majority Government did towards insurance, let me remind them that that Government was


bringing this country along the road to recovery from behind scratch. There was nothing in the kitty. Therefore, our opportunity to do much about social legislation was very small. But we did all we could. We laid the groundwork for this Bill.
The sum of £2½ million is not a great deal to give, especially in connection with the most hazardous of all occupations— motherhood. While mining is certainly the most hazardous of industrial occupations, procreation is of the utmost importance to the nation. The million lives we lost in the First World War have not yet been replaced. Those who study statistics know that by the year 1970 the problem of old age pensioners will be a most potent question. I trust that the Minister will not weary of well doing but will take the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mrs. Cullen) and my hon. Friend the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie.
When I see this inducement in the Bill for women to give birth to children in their homes, I compare Scotland with England from the point of view of housing. I say to myself that whoever framed the Measure framed it from an English outlook on housing. It is freely admitted that the English housing position is not nearly as acute as the position in Scotland in such places as the Gorbals. Not many months ago I was in Glasgow when the newspaper boys came along shouting, "Wash house collapses—boy killed." They do not collapse so easily in Edinburgh, although Edinburgh is an older town. There the housing is of a much more solid type. Nevertheless, we have our Gorbals in Edinburgh—in the Royal Mile, for instance.
One of the Edinburgh Members told me today of a case in the Royal Mile of a bus driver with a wife suffering from consumption. They have three children in various hospitals in Edinburgh all suffering from consumption, and they live at the top of five flights of stairs. Would that be a house of which the Minister would approve for use for maternity purposes? For many years I was senior baillie in Bonnyrigg, a small burgh in Midlothian. That small burgh was compelled in 1929 to absorb the neighbouring burgh of Lasswade under the 1929 Act. In the neighbouring burgh there

was no purification scheme and no adequate water supply. The whole place was a slum.
I was a member of the allocation committee. That was one of the most unpopular jobs in the council. Probably that is why I, the only Labour man on the council, got the job. But one learns. Sometimes it is a painful process. The allocation committee consisted of the then provost, the retired district nurse and myself. Previously it used to be said that in that burgh the houses were allocated in the coachmaker's shop. I altered that.
I convinced the committee—the committee, not the council—that houses should be allocated on need. "Well, Mr. Pryde," they said, "explain to us and define need." I replied, "The expectant mother has a need. She should have a chance for her life, the child should have a chance for its life, the doctor should have a chance to perform his function and the nurse should have a chance to do her work." Naturally, nine times out of 10 I won. because the old nurse took sides with me. She said, "Certainly, Mr. Pryde, that is correct."
The Minister should not be afraid to compete for money. We have witnessed in this House recently what some regard as the assassination of the free Health Service. I want the Minister to tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that in Scotland we require maternity hospitals. In the City of Edinburgh the Simpson Maternity Hospital is overworked and our womenfolk are not getting that length of time in hospital when bearing a first child that they should get.
Also, we have in the County of Midlothian a new town in course of erection, without the assistance of the Government, and there we require maternity services. Within a few miles of Dalkeith 40,000 people are being congregated, and we are totally dependent upon the City of Edinburgh for services. I want the Minister to be courageous. I say in all sincerity that he has done a good job up to now. I want him to make it clear to the Cabinet that we in Scotland will not stand for just anything: we intend to claim our birthright. We claim that a good house is not a luxury. A good modern hygienic house is the right of every Scotsman and Scotswoman.

Mr. Ellis Smith: And every Englishwoman.

Mr. Pryde: The problem is six times more difficult in Scotland.
I want now to turn to the benefits provided under the Bill. A payment of 32s. 6d. for a male dependent is not sufficient today to relieve the worry of the woman who is about to take a chance with her life. It is based upon the old parish council conception, upon the old national assistance basis and upon the idea of sickness benefit. An hon. Member opposite said that we were compensating the women in that they would lose or gain to the extent of sickness benefit. I suggest that the Minister should look at the matter from the point of view of what is required in the household.
When the man is ill it is true to say that the cost of living for the household goes up considerably, especially if the house is not of a modern type. The woman has to go without many items to which she is entitled when passing through this phase of her life and trying to bring the man back to health. I notice much elasticity in the Bill, and I am glad of it, because it will leave room for the Minister, in succeeding stages, to bring it up still further to the standard which this House will welcome and pass without the slightest criticism.

7.0 p.m.

Mrs. Eveline Hill: I welcome this Bill, as I am sure the women of this country will do. I am also very glad that the Government have had the time and the courage to bring it before the House now, and I hope it will pass through all its stages as quickly as possible.
It is quite true that there is a very large number of women who just cannot get into hospital, and to these women I am sure the extra benefits which are to be paid will be a very great help indeed. I very much agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Gorbals (Mrs. Cullen) that it would be very much better if women who have to go into hospital could stay a little longer. I should like to have all the confinements in hospital, but the staff is not there for the purpose, and if some people stay there longer, others will not be able to get in at all.
It is of the utmost value that women should have the opportunity of going into hospital for their first babies, but, on the other hand, there are many women who very successfully have their first babies at home. We must remember that conditions are very different in these days from those of a number of years ago, and that a very large number of welfare schemes, which have come into operation very often as a result of Conservative Governments or Governments that were predominantly Conservative, have considerably helped women to look forward to their confinements with a very much greater degree of confidence than, shall we say, 50 years ago.
However, those women who at present are unable to go into hospital, simply because there is not the space for them. are now going to appreciate the extra benefit which is offered in this Bill, and, indeed, I think they have a right to some extra benefit if they are not going into hospital. They are involved in additional costs, and it is only fair that they should have additional help in order to bear those costs.
It is a very tragic thing that a woman who ought to go into hospital should be unable to do so, and, unfortunately, there have been some of these cases, because the hospitals have been full. It may have been the case that, if some of those women who were in hospital had had the opportunity of a little extra money to help them to have their babies at home, the lives of other mothers, and occasionally of babies as well, could have been saved.
I welcome the Bill, and I have very much sympathy with the comments made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent. Central (Dr. Stross), who spoke so feelingly of mothers in their own homes. He described them as queens in their own castles at that particular time, and said how much the nation required women to have their babies in just those circumstances. I hope that the Bill will have a speedy passage, so that the people of this country may derive benefit from it.

7.4 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: The hon. Lady the Member for Wythenshawe (Mrs. Hill) has referred to a matter which has been the subject of many comments from both sides of the House. The hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) asked,


a short time ago what was the party line on these benches about the proposal for the home confinement grants. There is a perfectly simple answer, and there need be no secret about it. The collective opinion of these benches is in favour of giving these home confinement grants a trial.
At the same time, fears have been expressed by hon. Members on both sides concerning the possible effect of the introduction of this new feature of maternity benefits, and on these benches especially because we on this side of the House are probably closer to working class conditions than hon. Gentlemen opposite. Those fears are that there may be a discouragement in the home confinement grants to having babies in hospital in those cases in which they ought to be born in hospital.
We must bear in mind what the National Insurance Advisory Committee said when proposing these home confinement grants, because here is the clue to the fears expressed on these benches. I wish to quote from Paragraph 22 of the Report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee (Cmd. 8446):
It has also been represented to us that the absence of differentiation in benefits, and the consequent financial advantage, encourages women who could well remain at home to apply to be confined in hospital.
In Paragraph 23, the Report says:
Representations have been made to us that this financial incentive is causing an excessive demand for hospital maternity beds which ought to be devoted primarily to maternity cases likely to need hospital attention (for example, abnormal confinements and cases where housing or domestic conditions make home confinements undesirable) or be transferred to other uses.
They conclude, in Paragraph 24:
We have been impressed by the arguments set out in the two preceding paragraphs and the unanimity of the opinions expressed.
That is where the home confinement grants started, and they started in a desire to discourage mothers from pressing to have their babies in hospital when they might well have them at home. That is the reverse side of the coin which has been the chief currency in the debate so far, and hon. Members on this side of the House—and I am sure we all agree —say that it would be undesirable if this financial inducement were to encourage mothers, for the sake of the money, to have their babies at home when they ought to have them in hospital.
Here, we must be careful not to insult the intelligence and common sense of the working class people of Britain. I was born in a working class household, and my father is still living in the house in which I was born, I think it would be a mistake for any hon. Members, on either side of the House, to assume that there is any lack of responsibility on the part of working class mothers and parents in knowing what is best for their children and what is the best place for their babies to be born.
We must take care not to assume that all working-class people in Britain live in slums, or that all working-class women have ne'er-do-well husbands. There are more worthy husbands than there are ne'er-do-wells among the working classes, and, really, the ne'er-do-wells are not in the working classes at all. The Labour Government, for six years, have been trying to teach them better ways by giving them less money to spend in riotous living.
Incidentally, I am not at all averse to the introduction of party politics in a debate on babies. If there is party politics in babies, let us have it. After all, we have been having party politics for a week. Why should we not go on doing it? What is party politics, anyway? It is difference of opinion held collectively, organised collectively and expressed collectively through our electoral machinery. That is party politics, and, if that were not so, we certainly would not be here, so that I do not think we need be too mealy-mouthed about it.
I doubt, however, whether this difference of judgment about the possible effects of the home confinement grants can be resolved on the Floor of the House. Nevertheless, I think it will be very difficult to discern its operation in practice because very few women will tell anybody that they had their baby at home because of the money. It will be difficult, but as we get better houses and more of them—and, after all, that is the clue not only to having babies at home, but to a great many other things we want —and more hospital facilities, then, surely, this problem will tend to resolve itself.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) asked whether this £3 was too much or too little. Who can say? I doubt whether this or any other benefit under the National


Insurance Service is really adequate for the purpose it sets out to cover. I am not going to argue whether the cost of living has risen in particular directions to a point which would make £3 more or less adequate. I think that for maternity neither £9 nor £12 is enough, and that on occasions of this kind the National Insurance Service should be bountiful rather than merely adequate.
We shall have to observe the home confinement grant in operation and discern, as far as we can, any undesirable tendencies which may flow from it. In the meantime, I see that the Fleet Street poets have been having a little fun out of the home confinement grant. In the "Star" I recently read a little ditty which said:
In future, when with frantic joy
Proud fathers tell us 'It's a boy—
A baby of eleven pounds'
It's not the giant that it sounds;
For well we know when fathers phone us
The kid weighs eight—and three's the bonus.
We shall have to see how it goes.
I want specially to deal with a point raised by the hon. Member for Wolver-hampton, South-West regarding the introduction of the contributory principle into the maternity allowance. I am sorry that the hon. Member is not in his place at the moment. I am not complaining, because he has been with us for a large part of the debate, and I well understand that he is in need of relaxation as much as anyone else. He welcomed the introduction of the contributory principle into the maternity allowance available to working a woman as a compensation for loss of earnings during the period of her confinement. I also feel that the introduction of the contributory principle is justified, especially when it is accompanied by improved benefits.
To find the reason why the married woman was placed in her present position, we have to go back to the Beveridge Report, and Lord Beveridge was in this difficulty. He felt that the compulsory insurance of married women under the old scheme was unsatisfactory, and said so in his Report. He realised that he had to put the married woman either on a compulsory or a voluntary basis, or shut her out of insurance altogether. He decided—and it was followed in the subsequent White Papers—that it was best to put the married woman on the basis of voluntary insurance because of certain

benefits which she could obtain by such insurance, especially in regard to retirement pensions.
I think Lord Beveridge feared— although he did not express it in so many words in paragraph 108 of his Report— that when the married woman was put on the basis of voluntary insurance in contrast to the compulsory insurance under the old scheme, she might decide not to insure, and thereby do herself and her family damage through having no maternity allowance when she had to give up work on account of confinement. He provided against that contingency by recommending a maternity allowance for a married woman worker irrespective of her own insurable status, and the White Paper of 1944 placed the charge of the maternity allowance upon the contributions of women in Classes I and II.
As the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said—and I am glad to see that he has returned to the Chamber —the charge for the maternity allowance for the married woman worker was placed fairly and squarely on the contributions of other women workers or self-employed workers. The charge for the maternity grant and attendance allowance was divided equally between the contributions of both men and women. That is how Lord Beveridge, and later the White Paper, provided this insurance cover for married women workers who chose not to be insured under the new scheme.
Under this Bill, we are saying to the married woman, "If you want these benefits, you must pay contributions on the same level as other women and you must satisfy certain reasonable contribution conditions." The Minister has said that under the transitional arrangements nobody will be injured in their rights under the existing scheme for 65 weeks, and that during that time all women will have the opportunity to qualify by their contributions for these different and improved benefits.
But we still have to face the problem which Lord Beveridge had to face, that of the woman who neglects to insure, or who declines to insure, and who after 65 weeks will, as far as I understand from what the Minister has said, have no maternity allowance whatever. Thereafter any married woman worker who


has not satisfied the contribution conditions will not receive a penny in respect of maternity allowances. She will not be entitled, as will other married women, to the new consolidated maternity grant of £9, or of £12 in the event of a home confinement.
I do not think we can look at that without some anxiety, because it may mean that married women workers who are contributing substantially to the maintenance of the household and who may wish to go on working after they have been confined, will be without compensation for loss of earnings during a substantial period when they may be unable to carry on their work.
Will the proposals under this Bill put pressure on such women to curtail their period off work? If so, that will be an undesirable consequence of the Bill, and I am wondering whether the Minister ought not to continue some form of benefit under existing arrangements to women who do not undertake voluntarily the insurance necessary to qualify them for the new benefits. I am disturbed about it.
I think there is always this difficulty when we allow people the option of insuring or not, and I believe there has been no more unsatisfactory feature of the National Insurance Service than the dilemma in which many married women have found themselves in trying to make up their minds whether or not to continue their payments. I have dealt with thousands of letters on National Insurance, in many of which I have been asked to try and calculate whether it would be to the advantage of the writers to continue their contributions under the National Health Service, most of them, of course, having regard mainly to what effect it would have on their retirement pension. We had to have regard to the length of time over which they would be contributing, the date on which they would qualify for the retirement pension and the difference in ages there was between husband and wife, and so on.
Most difficult and intricate questions have to be decided in trying to satisfy a woman that it would be in her interests to continue to contribute. Now we are certainly giving married women a little more positive encouragement to become insured under the new scheme, because

long before they come to the stage of being interested in their retirement pension they will be interested in their maternity benefits, especially those who propose to carry on working.
Another reason why, on the grounds of equity, one is entitled to ask married women to contribute towards these benefits is that the married woman worker is very generously treated under our Income Tax system. A man and wife who are working, and who are both receiving Income Tax allowances and concessions, are much better off than a husband who. on one lot of earnings, is maintaining his wife and family. If a man is earning £6 a week and his wife £5, the Income Tax they pay between them is little more than the tax paid by a man receiving £11 a week and maintaining a wife and two children.
In the higher income ranges they would pay considerably less than a married man with one child, and in some cases less than a married man with a wife and two children. That is the incidence of the taxation system which undoubtedly favours married women workers, because it gives the husband the full allowances of a married man and it gives the wife who is working the full allowances of a single woman.
There is no doubt that in those circumstances married women workers, especially if their husbands are earning, and mostly they are, will be in an economic position to pay a contribution for their improved benefits. But I still come back to the fear that we may be leaving some married women workers entirely uncovered by insurance benefits for the period of their absence from work while they are having a child.
There may be some points to consider on the transitional arrangements and on the contribution conditions. Even the level of benefits may justify some attention when we come to the Committee stage. I am sure that the Minister, with his usual courtesy and consideration, will be glad to consider any points we may put. Taking the Bill as a whole, we are bound to welcome it for the improvements it conveys and we are not detracting in any way from those improvements by contributing a few criticisms or expressing a few fears.
The Trades Union Congress had a representative on the National Insurance


Advisory Committee and he was a signatory to the Report. The T.U.C. has since approved the general principles of the Bill, which weighs very heavily with those of us, especially on this side of the House, who are very sensitive to trade union opinion. But I hope that the points I have mentioned will receive consideration by the Minister.

7.24 p.m.

Mrs. E. M. Braddock: While welcoming the Bill, because we welcome any increase or additional benefit which can be given to people requiring it, I do not think that that aspect can be considered completely in isolation. Maternity units and hospital services throughout the country are having the greatest difficulty in meeting the needs of those people who desire to go into hospital for their confinement. Most management committees have to find some way of deciding whether a woman can be allowed to go into a maternity unit. I am concerned that if this grant is used in the working class areas as an incentive to a woman to remain at home we may find ourselves in great difficulties.
In some of the hospitals and maternity units it is not a question of discharging a woman with her baby after eight days; some are discharged at five days in order to provide accommodation for other people, and this is having a bad effect. Generally, women desire to go into hospital because they know that if necessary they can have the attention of a doctor. If they decide to have their child at home, and they book a doctor, there is no guarantee that they will be attended by that doctor. The municipal midwife is responsible for the confinement and only if she decides it is necessary is a doctor called in. Many women are concerned about that, and insist that if possible they shall go to hospital for their confinement.
When everyone in the family is working the additional £3 would not be an incentive to a woman to remain at home. But it could be an incentive if the members of the family who are earning were on short-time, and if the income of a household is seriously depleted by unemployment, as is the case in some parts of the country. Then, very often, the expectant mother insists on remaining at home and no one could persuade her

that in her own interests she should go to a maternity unit.
I have been inquiring among the obstetricians in my constituency and I find that there is a divided opinion. Some of the women in the poorer areas, and who are badly housed, regard the grant as an extra £3, and take a chance by staying at home. Others say, "No. If the doctor says that in my own interests I ought to go into hospital, or to a maternity unit for my confinement, the £3 will not worry me very much." So we cannot assess the situation.
The Minister of National Insurance must consult the local authorities to be certain that the full quota of municipal midwives is available for every area. One of the reasons we cannot attract municipal midwives is that their pay is less than that of a sister who takes responsibility in a hospital unit. Local authorities are having great difficulties in making up the establishment they feel necessary to meet the needs in their areas. If a midwife delivers a child she considers that child as her special care, and she pays special attention to it. But if a woman goes into hospital she may be discharged after a short period, because (he beds are over-booked, and I believe that the beds in every maternity unit in the country are over-booked. If the woman is discharged, the district midwife who has to take responsibility is not nearly as interested in dealing with the case as she is in the cases that she has delivered.
I am told that practically all cases are discharged too early from hospital and go back home, because of over-booking of accommodation, so that hospitals can meet the needs of the people who are waiting. When mothers come home, all question of breast feeding has gone altogether. If people can remain in hospital, or at any rate in one place during their confinement, for the full period, they get the best education and attention, especially so far as child welfare is concerned.
During the progress of the Bill the Minister ought to make recommendations to, or there should be some discussion with, the Ministry of Health to see whether the £3 is an incentive to women to remain at home. If so, local authorities should be enabled to find the necessary municipal midwives to deal with them. We are well below strength in Liverpool and we cannot get any more,


but I must say, in all fairness, that for a long time we have taken the view that the woman herself ought to decide what she wants to do. We have found that women who are in a position to pay heavy fees for an obstetrician or who can go into nursing homes, have home conditions which are ideal for them to be confined there.
If it is good enough for people who are in a position to get the very best attention to be permitted to decide whether they shall go into hospital or nursing home or not, it ought to be good enough for working-class people to make the same decision, even though the woman cannot pay for it.
In 1935, when I was Chairman of the Maternity and Child Welfare Committee in Liverpool, I insisted that there should be sufficient maternity hospital accommodation to meet the needs of all women who decided to go into hospital, apart from medical necessity. It is frightful for a doctor in charge of a hospital to have to decide which is the more important, the case of a woman who desires to go into hospital and has been booked, or an acute operative case that requires immediate attention, when there is only one bed.
I am inclined to believe that the Ministry of Health will use this extra £3 to urge that there is no necessity to provide great additional maternity hospital accommodation. From the women I have spoken to I find that it is very problematical how the extra grant will be used and how it will affect the decision between staying at home or going into a hospital for confinement.
While we have to watch this experiment, the Ministry of Health ought not to hold up additional maternity accommodation in the belief that the grant may keep a sufficient number of women at home to obviate the necessity of providing the hospital accommodation that people may want. The almoners and health visitors will have a terrible time, when a woman wants to go into hospital and there is no accommodation. They will have to decide, in the light of home conditions and medical needs, which woman shall go into hospital and which shall stay at home. Watching the

reductions in the estimates for hospital building. I find that many management committees and regional boards are cutting down the possibility of extending the maternity services.
The Ministry may hope that the proposed grant will have some effect in inducing women to remain at home. I hope it is not so, and if it is not, then the Ministry of Health has the responsibility of ensuring that sufficient maternity accommodation is provided for women who desire, whether for medical or psychological reasons, to go to hospital. Childbirth is a difficult time for a woman. She may not be understood, but have an idea of her own about what she wants to do. If she feels that she has been frustrated about the idea, difficult complications can arise out of that frustration. We are open to accept that the £3 may keep women at home, but I hope that the Ministry of Health will not decide not to provide the maternity beds that may be necessary.
We welcome any increase in money given to people who need it. I hope that during the Committee stage it may be possible to amend the Bill in the way suggested by the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summer-skill) with reference to married women and the length of time they pay contributions. I hope the discussion will be useful, and that the Bill will emerge from the Committee a little better than it is now, although it is already quite good.

7.36 p.m.

Mr. C. J. M. Alport: It is not on all subjects that I agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock), but I never listen to her speaking on the subject of health without appreciating the very considerable experience on which she is able to rely in giving her views.
In one respect her arguments were not quite accurate this afternoon. She, and other hon. Members, must recognise that hospital accommodation, not only for maternity cases but for all forms of hospitalisation, is not likely to be ideally adequate to the needs of the people. We have to face the problem as it exists, which is that a good many women who face confinement will have to have the confinements at home, as is at present


often the case and as has been the position for some time. The Bill does something which we should support to make it easier for such women to have their confinements at home.
We hope that priority will be given to those who most need to go to maternity hospitals for their confinement. They fall into two categories, those who face a first confinement and those who face a difficult confinement. I fully agree with the hon. Lady that it is essential that women should be allowed to remain in hospital as long as possible, and I would say for the full 14 days. If we can by the Bill reduce the pressure on maternity accommodation in hospitals so that priority cases can enjoy hospital amenities for as long as possible, the Bill deserves our support.
I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) who said that mothers of all classes, and not only of the working class, are the people who make the decision and that they would always make a responsible decision in this matter. Husbands possibly have a somewhat different approach from that of their wives to the problem. For my own part, ideally I should like to see all confinements take place in hospital, but women, for various reasons, often prefer to have their confinements in their own home. This Bill merits our support because it enables them to do that in cases where they have not adequate means to have their confinement in the conditions of greater comfort which their husbands and the community would like them to have.
For the reasons which I have mentioned alone, I think that this Bill deserves the whole-hearted support of the House. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mrs. Cullen) made a point which we on this side of the House fully appreciate when she referred to the problems of those women who, for various reasons, must have their confinements at home. On that point we come to the housing problem as being at the root of the matter. The facilities are not available at home because of the housing conditions and we know that conditions in the hon. Lady's constituency are in many cases shockingly bad. I think that this Bill should be welcomed and supported and given a speedy passage through the House, and I hope that that will be the case.

7.41 p.m.

Mr. William Keenan: I have wondered during the course of this debate whether we were really dealing with insurance problems, because most of what has been said has been with reference to the National Health Service. The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) referred to the housing need. I join with him in that expression of opinion. The proposed increase in the maternity allowance is actually £4, because the maximum is £1 more than the £3 offered to those who have their confinements at home. I believe it to be true to say that the £3 will be the means of inducing a very large number of women to remain at home when they ought to go to a hospital.
At least 50 per cent., if not more, of women who give birth to children have today no facilities for confinement at home. In all of our large industrial areas a newly-married couple have to wait many years before they secure a home of their own, and it is probably those couples who, in the first few years of marriage, are the parents of nearly half of the children born in this country. Nearly all those couples live in apartments, many of which are not very satisfactory.
The serious housing situation has been responsible very largely for the extension of our maternity services. I do not think that it is very commendable that the provisions of this Bill are the only things that we can do to induce women to be confined at home, and that when, very often, it is highly desirable that they should have their confinement in an institution or a hospital. It is tragic that the provisions of this Bill should be our approach to what is probably the most important problem confronting us at the present time.
Through the provisions of this Bill the Government will get out of the need to extend the maternity services of the country at a time when the National Health Service should be extended instead of being stopped or curtailed. The majority of children born today are children of parents who are not living in a home of their own or who are sharing their home with somebody else. I believe that the attention that has been given to maternity and child welfare in the past generation


is probably more responsible than anything else for the decrease in infant mortality. But by this Bill we are complacently offering expectant mothers a bribe to stay at home and so to some extent evading the responsibility to extend our health services.
I am sorry to put it that way. Knowing as I do the economic conditions and the housing conditions of many people, I can foresee that they will fall for this bribe. I belong to a family of nine children of whom I was the second, though perhaps not the best. All my life I have been associated with the kind of neighbourhood where housing conditions are bad and I still live not very far away from such a neighbourhood. My conclusion from observations of the type of life that goes on in such a neighbourhood is that the mother will want to stay at home for her confinement, though not because she ought to do so.
Many women who ought to have their confinement in hospital stay at home because of family responsibilities. The tragedy is that when such a woman stays at home she is doing household work within three, four or five days after her confinement. We all know that that is the case. I have seen it happening in my own home when I was a boy, and I know that it takes place in many homes today. That is one reason I think that this Bill, advantageous as it is in many respects, is a retrogressive step from the point of view of health.
I would much prefer to see a better approach and I hope that on the Committee stage we shall be able to express our criticisms and have some adjustments made to this Bill. I believe that the Bill supplements the Government's health policy, a policy which shows no intention to extend the maternity and child welfare services for which there is so great a need. The Bill by no means provides what is necessary. It is something designed to persuade mothers not to go into hospital when they really ought to go and by such means to ensure that there will be less need to extend the hospital services. At the same time, I cannot help but welcome the improved benefit provided under the Bill, because that benefit will be actually 50 per cent. greater in the case of confinements at home than it is at present.
The increase in benefit to a working mother is about £11. It has gone up from £27 8s. to £38 5s. I would remind the Minister, however, that the amount which the working mother will have to pay is approximately equal to that. The increased benefit which will be paid to her, so long as she qualifies, will be what she pays herself in contributions, apart from contributions made by her employer. I do not think this is a good thing; I think we lose on it. It may have the effect of preventing some young women remaining at work when it is very desirable that they should do so in the drive for increased production which is so necessary in certain industries.
We have been justifiably deploring the fact that some of our womenfolk have to remain at work for too long and then return to work too early. It has been recognised that even 13 weeks is not sufficient, because in the new Measure we intend to extend the period to 18 weeks. If they do not qualify for benefit they will work longer and return to work earlier than they should. This is not the way to ensure that young children will have a better chance.
The Minister should ask the Government to consider leaving the qualification as it is at present. One of our greatest needs—as it is in all countries—is to have the healthiest children we can. We should hesitate before doing anything to undermine our endeavours to achieve that objective. I fear that the necessity to pay the full contribution to qualify for maternity benefit in the future will have that effect. It will mean that mothers will probably remain at work longer and return sooner. That is something which we should avoid. There is no need for it in this generation. The present provision, which allows a woman to benefit by virtue of her husband's insurance— so long as she is working—is sufficient, and the step which is being taken by this Bill is a retrogressive one.

7.54 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I did not have the good fortune to hear the earlier speeches in this debate, so perhaps I should not make any general comment on the Bill or the way in which it has been presented or opposed. Having listened to the last few speeches, however, I want to say a few words with reference to them.
I ventured to interrupt my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) —who has now left the Chamber—when he seemed to imply that most fathers would prefer their children to be born in a hospital rather than at home, even if the home conditions were suitable. I intervened as a father of six children—all born at home—the first four of whom were born in very limited accommodation.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock), to whom both sides of the House always listen with great attention when she talks on health matters, pointed out that many mothers who could well have their children at home, in suitable home conditions, nevertheless preferred to go into hospital, and that in some cases they were keeping out people who needed hospital attention very much more than they did themselves.
That is so in many cases. Many prospective mothers go into hospital because of a quite unnecessary fear of what they have to go through, and it seems to me that if general public opinion encouraged mothers who have suitable home accommodation, and are physically fit, to have their children in their own homes, it would help to relieve the congestion of the hospital services.
From a psychological and family point of view—and here I speak from experience—it is much better for a child to be born in the home. It relieves many psychological difficulties in connection with elder children and the mother if there is no break in the home life and the mother is not unnecessarily treated as a hospital case. We all appreciate the fact that such conditions do not very often exist and that in many cases housing conditions make it most undesirable that the mother should have her child at home. Several references have been made to housing conditions. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester that in many cases this is really a housing case and not a case of health.
I believe that all hon. Members will welcome the Bill and the purpose for which it is intended, in giving assistance to those who have to have their children at home.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: I should apologise to the Minister for the fact that a Committee elsewhere prevented my hearing his speech, but I

approach the Bill with rather mixed feelings, which have not been allayed by the speeches of hon. Members opposite.
If this home confinement grant—which is the topic we have discussed more than anything else in this Bill—is to be considered as compensation for a woman having her confinement at home, I am in absolute agreement with it. All I would say is that when one considers the attention which a woman gets in hospital —the comfort, the attendance and all the services—£3 is a paltry sum to compensate for that, and is completely inadequate.
I am very glad to see a representative of the Scottish Office here. This is not really a National Insurance Bill in genesis. The Department of Health for Scotland Report of 1952, in page 27, says:
Domiciliary Midwifery: As has been noted in previous years, the number of domiciliary births continues to fall….
If it were a matter of compensation alone, compensation should have been given at the time domiciliary births were high rather than low. The Report says:
As has been noted in previous years, the number of domiciliary births continues to fall, both absolutely and in relation to the total births. The Ministry of National Insurance are taking steps to give effect to the recommendations of the Minister's Advisory Committee that the rates of maternity benefit should be adjusted in favour of the mother who is confined at home.
In other words, simply because of the need to keep people out of hospital—not because, even at the moment, there is no room for them but because it is more costly there, and because of the pressure on the available accommodation—they want to increase the number of domiciliary births. From this one paragraph alone the argument that this is a compensation is completely destroyed. This is an inducement; and when considering the Scottish position it is a very dangerous inducement.
Hon. Members opposite talk about the great increase in the number of working mothers. They can only be referring to working-class mothers, because the better-off women always went into nursing homes.

Mr. Wilson: No.

Mr. Ross: The majority did. I will come back to that later.
Since that great increase in the number of hospital confinements there has also been a fall in the maternal mortality rate and in the infant mortality rate. I draw the attention of the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to what is said on page 14 of this Report, which, once again, shows a decline in infant mortality. The Report says:
In both the neo-natal period (the first month of life) and at 1 to 12 months, there is room for improvement. With the general improvement in the infant mortality rate, however, the neo-natal period is assuming a greater importance. Indeed"—
and this is important in the light of what we are doing, because more mothers are going into hospitals for confinement—
in some of the larger industrial areas, 50 per cent. of the infant mortality occurs within the first two weeks.
If more and more women are at present under specialist care in hospitals, will the position be better if we turn back and more and more women are attended to at home, remembering the housing conditions in industrial areas there referred to?
The Joint Under-Secretary is responsible for housing in Scotland, and he knows that in industrial areas there— and we do not need to go to the Gorbals; it is so in my own constituency—there are whole streets, even whole areas of houses without bathrooms. In one-apartment and two-apartment houses the percentage is as high as from 33 per cent. to almost 40 per cent. in our industrial areas, and this problem must be examined from that aspect.

Mrs. Mann: It is sometimes very difficult for a mother to get into the bathroom while she is pregnant.

Mr. Ross: I can quite believe that, although I do not know how it is relevant to my argument.
The position is serious. There has not been the extension of maternity hospital services that we want, and if we had an assurance that continued attention is to be given to the need for maternity hospitals in Scotland I should feel very much happier about the Bill. I do not deplore the fact that since the Health Service started there have been fewer domiciliary births in Scotland. One of the things I am very glad to have seen in Scotland is that there has been less of this snob birth

complex, of women having to go into private nursing homes, which are very often inefficient.

Mrs. Mann: They still do.

Mr. Ross: That may well be, but in Kilmarnock, in Ayr, and in Ayrshire generally, there are only one or two private nursing homes left where there used to be quite a number. As I read the local Press in Kilmarnock, I see that the Burgh Maternity Hospital is the place where the births take place. People are relishing the service, the security, and the assurance that they will get the very best treatment there, and the £3 inducement will not be enough to combat the problem of the pressure on the available accommodation. The real answer is for the Minister of Health in England and Wales and the Secretary of State for Scotland to examine the whole question of the provision of maternity accommodation.
I can speak on this problem with a certain amount of authority based on my experience in the last few weeks.

Major Sydney Markham: For the first time?

Mr. Ross: Oh no. not for the first time. Look at the lines on my face.
In a sense, every time is the first time. All this talk about the second child being so much easier and all the rest of it, is not really true. We hear this glorification of having the right psychological setup for the mother. How often do we get the ideal conditions, not only the home conditions but the attention and the physical well-being of the mother, all of which have to be considered?
It is said there is grave danger that if the mother is at home she will, in order to attend to the needs of the rest of the family, get up far too soon. I think we are rather inclined to sentimentalise about that. I may have misheard what my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) said, but I understood her to say that we should attend only to what the mother herself wants. I think the mother has to be guided in this respect by her medical attendants as to what is best for her.
I think that this Bill springs from the fact that there is pressure on hospital accommodation, and we should be getting


from the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland greater provision in their Health Estimates for more maternity accommodation, for the improvement of existing materity accommodation in certain maternity hospitals, quite apart from the actual conditions. Some of them were never intended as maternity haspitals, and I wonder how some matrons, sisters and nurses in charge cope. The reason is probably that there is more satisfaction in this kind of nursing than in any other.
We want an assurance from the Minister that this is not an inducement— if it is an inducement it is a dangerous one—and that attention is being given to the extension of maternity accommodation. The fact that the mothers want to have their confinements in hospital shows how popular it is and indicates that more and more attention must be given to this aspect. We must not look upon what is proposed as other than a temporary Measure. It must not be regarded as the final step; it should be complementary to the extension of the maternity service.

8.11 p.m.

Mr. Bernard Taylor: All hon. Members will agree that we have had a most interesting debate on a very important human problem. The boisterousness and excitement of the past week have been absent from our proceedings. It is difficult to reply to the speeches which have been made, because their content has been such that we should all like to read and re-read them in order fully to appreciate all that they imply.
I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) is not in his place. If I understood him rightly, he made a statement with which I profoundly disagree, that the right place for a woman to have her children is in the home. The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) said exactly the opposite. They are hon. Members of the same party, and apparently they have their differences of opinion like everybody else. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Colchester say that it would be ideal if we had sufficient accommodation to permit all confinements to take place in hospital. I entirely agree with that and hope that the time will eventually come when that will be the situation.
I join the Minister in the tribute which he paid to the National Insurance Advisory Committee. My right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill), not being satisfied with the application of the maternity benefits, decided in May, 1950, that it would be well for the Committee to look into the question. Having read and re-read their Report, I have come to the conclusion that the Committee spared neither time nor effort to obtain the views of knowledgeable people on the subject, and I join the Minister and my right hon. Friend in stating that the House is indebted to the Committee for a very interesting Report. The Committee wrestled with the problem for a long time, having 19 meetings and hearing evidence by influential organisations as well as individuals.
I wish also to express my appreciation to the Minister for the memorandum which he has submitted about the Bill. It explains in a very simple way some of the Bill's more complicated provisions. The Minister was following the precedent set by his two predecessors, as he did with the National Insurance Bill last year, and I hope that he will continue to employ this method if the occasion arises in future. As the Minister said this afternoon, the Bill gives effect to practically —I make the qualification—all the recommendations of the Committee. There are one or two minor changes, but, in the main, practically all the recommendations have been accepted by the Minister and are embodied in the Bill.
Many of the speeches today have referred to maternity accommodation in hospitals. I wish particularly to refer to the admirable speech which has just been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). I hope that both the Ministry of Health and the Department of Health for Scotland will take note of some of the things which have been said in the debate about maternity accommodation in hospitals.
The Bill proposes one or two administrative changes relating to the contribution year and the benefit year. They are not at all serious and do not place any hardship upon anybody, but merely make for administrative tidiness, a subject which has not been mentioned so far. The changes will not be a bad thing from the administrative point of view, and they


do no harm to anyone and do not cast an undue burden upon any beneficiary.
The three main benefits in the Bill are: first, the maternity grant; secondly, the home confinement grant; and lastly, and perhaps the most controversial, the maternity allowance. It is clear that the maternity grant is a combination of the existing maternity grant and the attendance allowance. The attendance allowance which is at present paid to non-gainfully occupied women for a period of six weeks is to be abolished. I imagine that the reason why the new maternity grant will be bigger than the existing one is that it combines the existing maternity grant and the existing attendance allowance.
Another very important matter, which I welcome, is that the increased maternity grant will be paid to all women who are confined, whether they are gainfully occupied or not. That has not been the case under the existing scheme. The attendance allowance was not payable to gainfully occupied women who were in receipt of the maternity allowance.
Another thing is that the new maternity grant will be paid either before or after the confinement as the mother chooses. That is not the recommendation of the Committee, but I do not regard it as a serious departure. On balance, it is my view that the proposal in the Bill is to be preferred to the recommendation of the Committee. Why do I say that? For the elementary reason that this proposal gives to the mother— and I think it is right—the opportunity of deciding when is the appropriate time for the benefit. Would anyone contest that the mother is the best judge and is sufficiently sensible to know whether before or after the confinement the benefit can be best used for the mutual advantage of mother and child. The opinion of those of us on this side of the House, based on our experience over the past four years, particularly since the National Insurance Act came into existence, is that it is a good thing.
What about the issue of home confinements? A lot has been said about that during this debate though I am not at all surprised about that. There is a greater diversity of opinion upon this than there is on any of the other proposals in the Bill. It cannot be contested

that a home confinement is more expensive than a hospital confinement. The hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) asked us whether we wanted this part of the Bill or not. We do if for no other reason than that home confinements are more expensive than hospital confinements. All that my hon. Friends have been doing in this connection is to try to point out the possible dangers that there may be in home confinements.
I hope that this proposal will not result in reduced hospital admissions for maternity purposes. If I thought that this proposal was for the purpose of discouraging entry into hospital I should oppose it, but I do not think that that was in the mind either of the Committee or of the right hon. Gentleman. My view is that the reason for this additional money for home confinements is that such confinements are more expensive than hospital confinements.
There is not only diversity of opinion in the House today on this subject, but there is also diversity of opinion among women themselves. Some women prefer to go into hospital for their confinements. As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), most of them like to go to hospital for their first child. That may be for psychological reasons or they may be apprehensive for one reason or another, but I think it will be shown that there is a very great desire among women to go into hospital when they are to be confined for the first time.
There are, of course, a number of women who prefer to stay at home, and they, in the main, are mothers who have other children. It is not because they would not like to go into hospital, but they feel a greater peace of mind if they stay at home and discharge, in part at any rate, their responsibilities over their other children. Then there are those women who go into hospital on medical advice. It is all really a very complex problem, upon which there is a wide difference of opinion, even among women themselves.
On the question of the hospital versus the home, we should place on record the magnificent work done by our county councils and county borough councils through their midwifery services. There are many factors to be considered, such as the unsuitable and substandard houses. There are hundreds of


houses which are not suitable for home confinements, as has been revealed clearly by many of the speeches this afternoon. Hospital confinement has all the advantages. If anything goes wrong, as it can easily in this sphere, in a hospital there is available on the spot at a moment's notice every facility, and the necessary skill and attention can be called upon to deal with the situation.
The Report of the Advisory Committee tells us that about 50 per cent. of confinements take place today in hospital. In 12 months or two years' time it will be interesting to see whether these statistics show that the additional grant for a home confinement has any effect upon hospital admissions for maternity purposes.
Clause 6 of the Bill brings to our attention the maternity allowance. The International Labour Office as far back as 1919, 34 years ago, adopted the idea of monetary provision for gainfully employed women who were to be confined. Yet it was not until the National Insurance Act of 1946 that the idea was acted upon practically in this country.
The changes in the maternity allowance, to which the Minister drew attention in his admirable opening speech, were undoubtedly one of the most difficult problems of the Advisory Committee; in fact, they spoke of being in a dilemma. They said that the maternity allowance of 1946 was designed for one type of woman but that experience had shown that others for whom it was not designed had been getting it, while those for whom it was intended had been prevented from doing so for reasons which they stated.
The existing provision is that it is either a contribution test or a weeks of work test. The proposal in the Bill is to abolish the latter test so that married women who are gainfully occupied, and exercise the option not to contribute to the scheme will no longer be eligible for the maternity allowance benefit. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary can give us the number of gainfully employed women who have been in receipt of the maternity allowance. The Report of the Ministry of National Insurance for the year 1950 indicates that 119,000 maternity allowances were paid in that year. If possible, I am sure that the House would be interested to know the numbers out

of that 119,000 who were gainfully employed women, had exercised the option not to contribute, and were having the benefit not on a contribution test but on the weeks of work test.
I have one fear about making this test one of contribution entirely. It will hit hard the married woman who, by force of economic necessity, has to go out to work and exercises the option not to contribute because she cannot afford to do so. To safeguard her right to the maternity allowance this type will, in future, have to make contributions, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton). I know it will be said that by doing this she will be entitled not only to maternity allowance, but also to sickness and unemployment benefit.
In view of the hard cases that may arise as a result of the abolition of the weeks of work test, the question may arise as to whether the maternity benefits ought not to be taken out of insurance altogether and instead, like family allowances, become a direct charge upon the Exchequer. That is a big question, however, which I mention merely in passing.
Now I turn to the recommendations of the Advisory Committee not included in the Bill. As has been pointed out, the present qualification for maternity allowance is either 45 contributions or credits, or the test of weeks of work. I regret that the Minister has not seen fit to accept the recommendation in this connection and I share the concern of my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill), who made some comments about it.
I welcome the fact that the proposal in the Bill extends the benefit period before confinement from six to 13 weeks, but it increases from 45 to 50 the number of contributions that have to be paid before the beneficiary can enjoy the full benefit that is proposed in the Bill. I know that the Minister is amenable to suggestions and I hope that before the Committee stage, remembering that the Advisory Committee spoke so strongly on this point, he will think again with a view to reducing the number of contributions from 50 to 45, as the Committee recommended.
In 1950, the cost of benefits to the National Insurance Fund was £8,600,000.


The proposals in the Bill will cost an additional £2,500,000. This will bring the maternity benefits into line with the other benefits which were increased last year, when, for the purpose of meeting the cost of the increased benefits, the contributions of all contributors were considerably increased. We welcome the Bill. We think that it is all right and that it will to greater advantage, which was the purpose of the Advisory Committee's recommendations, distribute more equitably the maternity benefits.

8.38 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance (Mr. R. H. Turton): First, I should like to say what a delightful debate we have had and to thank everybody who took part in it. It is rather like what can happen to anyone who lives on the coast. For a week the storms may be pounding the coastline, and suddenly at the end of the week the sun comes out and one basks in it. So far as hon. Members have contributed to that basking, I thank them.

Mr. Cyril Bence: There are not many hon. Members basking on the benches opposite.

Mr. Turton: As the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) said, if there are politics in babies, let us have them. The reason why there is general agreement on this subject is that all parties have had a hand in building up the edifice of this social security. I looked at the report of the debate when the National Insurance Bill was introduced in 1911 and I found that Mr. Sydney Buxton, when he moved the Second Reading, disclaimed responsibility for the Bill and said that all the work for it had been done by his right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary. On looking further I found that the then Home Secretary was the present Prime Minister. That takes us right back to May, 1911.
We remember in the inter-war years how Mr. Neville Chamberlain worked hard to improve conditions of mothers in childbirth, in memory of his own mother, who had died in childbirth. Then in 1943 we had the Beveridge Plan, produced by a Liberal and approved by the Coalition Government under the present Prime Minister, the actual Bill being

introduced by the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths). I also pay tribute to the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill) for her work in remitting this matter to the National Insurance Advisory Committee. She has the distinction, I believe, of being the only mother who has ever held office in Britain, and I congratulate her on that fact.
The right hon. Lady introduced the very heated argument on the home confinement grant of £3. She adduced medical and obstetric arguments both for and against the home confinement grant and the amount at which it was fixed. Hon. Members on both sides of the House, without distinction of party, have taken very differing views as to whether it is better to have a baby at home or in hospital. In winding up for the Government I take no part in that dispute. It is the duty of my right hon. Friend to see that this home confinement grant is fixed at such a sum as will give the mother compensation for the extra cost of having the baby at home without providing an incentive in determining her choice. In my view, whether the baby is born at home or in hospital is not a matter to be decided by politicians, but by the mother on the advice of her medical adviser.
In our view, and in the view of the National Insurance Advisory Committee, the right sum for this home confinement grant is £3. The Committee, in paragraph 30, said that from their estimates £2 10s. was the extra cost involved in having a baby at home. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said that he thought it ought to be a great deal more. He said it was a paltry sum and used an argument which reminded me of a book I once read about the Ouroboros, the worm which eats its own tail. At one time he was saying that it would prevent women going to hospital and at another he said it was a paltry sum.
I admit that one may argue that the cost of having a baby at home is a great deal more than £3. Hospital costing returns show the average cost of maintenance in a maternity hospital is £13 16s. a week and the cost of those items which the parents would have to pay themselves if the confinement took place at home is £3 5s. 8d. If that is an indication it would show that the £3 is insufficient


compensation, but I am influenced by the fact that the Advisory Committee have gone into the matter in great detail.
They are very representative—representing both sides of industry, the medical profession and also the housewife—and they have come to the conclusion that £3 is the correct sum.
From what the hon. Member for Sowerby said, I gather that the Trades Union Congress endorsed the recommendation and that in their view it was correct. Therefore, I think there is no justification for the outburst of the hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Keenan), who stigmatised the home confinement grant as an attack on the health services of the country. It is not; it is extra compensation for the insured population to meet the cost of having their babies at home.

Dr. Stross: We notice when we read the Report that the lowest sum suggested was £2 and that other people suggested £6 and some £10. It seems very strange that they should come down to £3 as being the right sum. It does seem rather low.

Mr. Turton: I have to go on the Report before me. I cannot tell what happened in the National Insurance Advisory Committee. I am satisfied that the £3 is a fair sum and I believe that this debate has endorsed that fact. Some hon. Members have argued it is too much and some that it is too little, and for that reason I believe that £3 is the correct sum.
The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Vaughan-Morgan) asked my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health what were the figures of maternity beds in National Health Service hospitals at the present time. My hon. Friend has given me the figures. At the time the National Insurance Act came into operation there were 18,786, and the most recent return is 19,369.
The right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West and the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor) criticised the Bill because we have changed the contribution test for entitlement from 45 weeks, from the sixth week before confinement, to 50 weeks—

Dr. Summerskill: No.

Mr. Turton: Wait a moment—to 50 weeks starting from the thirteenth week before confinement. I appreciate they are not criticising the earlier date. What they apparently are criticising, and I am most surprised, is that they say we have now made it harder by asking for 50 instead of 45 contributions.

Mr. B. Taylor: No, we did not say it was harder. We said it seems a pity to extend the period of weeks from six to 13 and then extend the qualification of stamps from 45 to 50. We did not say it was harder, but it could be made easier than what is proposed in the Bill if the recommendations of the Committee concerning contributions were accepted.

Mr. Turton: That seems to be very much how I was reciting the argument of the hon. Member. He was objecting to the fact that we were asking for 50 contributions instead of 45. But he has forgotten, and the right hon. Lady has forgotten, the other part of this Measure which entitles the insured person to pay 13 stamps at the non-employed rate. The effect of that is that instead of having to have 45 stamps or credits as at present she will require in the future only 39 stamps or credits at class 1 or class 2, plus 11 at class 3. We are dealing with an insured woman who has not opted out of insurance and has to pay for a stamp each week, so this provision is an improvement on the conditions recommended by the Advisory Committee.

Dr. Summerskill: There should be even more improvements.

Mr. Turton: No doubt. We could have a position where a person would be entitled to have class 3 contributions—

Dr. Summerskill: If we had accepted the recommendations.

Mr. Turton: If we had accepted the recommendations of the Advisory Committee a working woman trying to qualify for a maternity allowance would be six weeks worse off than we are recommending in the Bill. I am surprised that the right hon. Lady, and the hon. Gentleman who was her Parliamentary Secretary when she was in office, should have forgotten the very involved contribution rules which govern sickness and maternity benefits. I recommend my right hon.


Friend's alteration from 45 to 50, which has the effect that 11 stamps can be paid for at class 3 rates.

Mr. Taylor: May we clear up this point? The non-employed contributions cannot be paid where the gainfully occupied woman is in work. If she is out of work, either for one week or the maximum of 13 weeks, she will find it difficult to find even the non-employed contribution.

Mr. Turton: The hon. Gentleman forgets that we are dealing with a woman who has opted in. She is under a legal obligation to pay for a class 3 stamp while not in employment. If she is in employment for the whole period the question does not arise. We are dealing with a woman who leaves the employment field at some period after the 39th week. As recommended by the Committee, she would have to have contributions or credits for 45 weeks. As proposed by my right hon. Friend, she need only have contributions or credits for 39 weeks but she must pay for the stamp, as she is legally bound to do, for the other 11 weeks.

Mr. Taylor: This is rather complicated. The woman is under no obligation to contribute if her income comes below a certain figure—I believe it is £104 a year. If she works for only a certain number of weeks and then leaves the employment market and her wages have been less than £104 she is under no obligation to contribute—not even the non-employed contribution.

Mr. Turton: Again, that is not completely accurate. If a woman had been employed and left her employment and her income dropped to £104 she would be under obligation to pay until she had put forward an application for small income exception. The small income exception is not intended for cases like that of the working woman in industry who has a week or two off work.
I come to the question of dependants' allowances which were mentioned by the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West, and the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann). The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie said that she would like to see the woman in receipt of a dependant's

allowance for an invalid husband getting as much for him as he would get for her if he was receiving an insurance benefit and claiming for his wife as a dependant. That is in fact what we are doing in the Bill. The married woman will get 32s. 6d. a week for herself and 21s. 6d. for her invalid husband, just as if it was the other way round and he was getting 32s. 6d. and 21s. 6d. for her—

Mrs. Mann: The husband is regarded as the breadwinner and he gets 32s. 6d. with 21s. 6d. for the wife. The wife is now becoming the breadwinner and she should get 32s. 6d. for herself and 32s. 6d. for him as well.

Mr. Turton: She becomes the breadwinner and under this Bill she will get maternity allowance of 32s. 6d. a week. She will draw 21s. 6d. for her husband. If he is not drawing sickness benefit, she will also get a dependant's allowance, after the birth of the baby, of 10s. 6d. a week. I think this is a notable improvement. There can be no criticism of it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate asked why the mother who had an amenity bed in hospital did not receive the grant. The answer is that the charge for an amenity bed does not cover the cost of accommodation and maintenance. It is made for the extra privacy provided. The ordinary cost of a mother's accommodation and maintenance is met by the National Health Service and, for that reason, a grant is not paid in such cases.
I was also asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate to say something about the publicity that will be given to these proposals. This is probably one of the most important points. We want to see that the provisions of this Bill, and especially the transitional provisions, are known to every mother, and we mean to do that as far as we possibly can. We shall be bringing out a small leaflet explaining the maternity benefit changes, and we shall also be issuing a larger leaflet that will replace the existing National Insurance leaflet on maternity benefit. These leaflets will be available at clinics and at food offices where expectant mothers get their special ration books.
Of course, there is the additional problem of trying to get this across to women who are not expectant mothers, but who are potential mothers and who may well


be women who are not even married, because the earlier part of the contributions for maternity allowance may cover such a period, and, therefore, we intend to use the fullest possible publicity, both in the Press and on the wireless, in order to secure that end. I can give that assurance to my hon. Friend and to others who have asked me questions on that score.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Will the Parliamentary Secretary ask his right hon. Friend to consider, when this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, the advisability of giving a talk on the wireless about it?

Mr. Turtou: I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman has made that suggestion. My right hon. Friend is here, I know he has heard it, and I hope he will be persuaded into giving a talk on the wireless, which I personally think is by far the best way.

Mr. Taylor: While on the point of publicity, which is important, would the Minister consider, in additon to all the other things that have been mentioned, having posters exhibited at places where women work in the textile areas of Lancashire and Yorkshire? It is worth considering, so that no stone shall be left unturned in bringing this information to the people.

Mr. Turton: My right hon. Friend has given an assurance that that also will be considered, among other suggestions. If hon. Gentlemen have any suggestions to make on publicity in order to get this across, I hope they will not hesitate either to write or to speak to my right hon. Friend or myself so that we can discuss them, because we have a common interest in this matter.
The hon. Member for Mansfield also asked questions regarding the maternity allowance and the proportion of women drawing maternity allowance who had opted out. The fact is that, out of 119,000 who were drawing the maternity allowance, some 30 to 40 per cent. have opted out. While I am giving figures, perhaps I may also answer the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop), who asked me what was the estimated cost of the home confinement grants. The answer is £1 million a year, and the number of mothers who are expected to receive it is 330,000 a year.
That brings me to the end of the major points that have been raised in this debate, and if there are other points to which I have not replied I will go through the whole debate and write to the hon. Members concerned, I hope before the Committee stage is reached. There is one important point in which I am personally involved. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) said he wanted a special maternity benefit for the first child, and he reminded me that he had made a plea during the Committee stage of the previous National Insurance Bill for a special maternity benefit during the first year of 8s. a week or £20. I can assure him that, as I then promised, we have given very careful consideration to his arguments, and, in fact, we have introduced this Bill following upon those arguments. We are giving to the working mothers for the first child a maternity benefit that will mean not the £20 which my hon. and gallant Friend suggested, but in some cases £41 5s., and in other cases, £38 5s.
I would remind the House that this maternity allowance has been proved by experience to be of particular benefit to mothers with their first child. It is for that reason that I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will realise that the argument he adduced on the Committee stage of the Bill dealing with family allowances has had very significant results.
The hon. Lady the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie criticised the change over from the maternity allowance for the short period at 36s. to the longer period at 32s. 6d. I think she has forgotten, however, that that is not the only change. Under the existing system, a woman drawing a maternity allowance is not entitled to the attendance allowance, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Mansfield, and, therefore, under our proposals she is getting a lump sum addition of probably £4 10s., that is the attendance allowance element of the new maternity grant. This carries out the recommendation of the National Insurance Advisory Committee which was that, instead of having a very high maternity allowance, it would be better to make a large lump sum payment.
I would also point out to the hon. Lady that in no other European country, as far as I have been able to find out, is


the maternity allowance higher than the sickness benefit, and there are only two other countries in Europe which have a maternity allowance for the period of 18 weeks which we are now recommending. I hope that on reflection hon. Members will realise that this Bill meets all the points about which they have been worried in recent weeks concerning maternity. We are proud to bring in this Bill at a time when the finances of this country have only recently recovered from a very difficult and dangerous predicament.

Mr. Taylor: There are the contributions.

Mr. Turton: Yes, but—

Dr. Summerskill: Now, now, do not spoil it in your peroration.

Mr. Turton: I am quite certain the right hon. Lady will not deny that fact. I would also say that we have shown courage in bringing it in in view of the fact that the insurance fund will face in future years a very great deficit. Therefore, I want the House to realise that some of the results of this Bill will have to be subjected to further consideration at the time of the quinquennial review.
We believe, however, that those risks are worth taking, because it is of vital importance to see that the mothers of this country have just treatment. In its recent policy document the Conservative Party said that the family is the rock on which we build society. I do not believe that anybody on either side of the House will disagree with that. It is because the family is the rock on which society should be built that we have introduced this Bill, which I hope will receive a unanimous Second Reading.

9.4 p.m.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: I am very pleased see a representative of the Scottish Office on the Government Front Bench. I propose to limit my remarks entirely to the home confinement grant, and I hope that the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary will inform us what assessment was made in Scotland of the position there as against the position in England before this provision was agreed to. I maintain that there is a great difference.
Take the housing position in Scotland. The Parliamentary Secretary will be aware that the vast majority of our houses are very small in comparison to the average house in England, that one house in three is more than 70 years old and that, generally speaking, we are not meeting our commitments in the building of new houses. The deterioration in old property is making them unfit for human habitation more quickly than we are providing new houses. I see opposite the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling), who graced Edinburgh and served her for many years in local government. He and all those interested in local government are aware of the great significance of the maternal and infant mortality rates in Scotland as against those of most other European countries, and not only of England.
For many years we encouraged in every way we could our young married women to go to hospital for their confinements. I am speaking of 20 or 30 years ago. We believed that the birth of children would be much safer and the maternal mortality rate much lower that way, but it took years to convince the working-class woman in Scotland that it was the right course. The natural tendency was for her to remain at home to be near her mother. The local midwife came in and made the necessary arrangements, yet there was still great danger, and we lost many mothers, and also children in the first few weeks of life or because they were stillborn. Public health authorities in Scotland were very anxious about the matter. Eventually, there was a decline in the maternal and infant mortality rates.
I am anxious, as are many people in local authority circles in Scotland, that we should not embark on a course that may weaken the structure that has been built up and that has saved life in Scotland. We are so keen about it that we think that term is not too strong. Did the Minister make any assessment of the position in Scotland? Did he contact the Secretary of State for Scotland or ask about the Scottish position? I do not think that he did. I do not think Scotland has had any special recognition, despite the fact that a massive case can be built up that our conditions are not similar to those in England in respect of housing conditions and the maternal and infant mortality rates. The education over a


long period to which I have referred has been fruitful, and has saved life.
Quite apart from that, I believe that confinement in a maternity hospital is preferable to confinement in the home, and I am not certain that the Minister has not been persuaded by external circumstances in taking the line which he has followed. If that is so, it is a deplorable thing. One more baby saved is infinitely preferable to the building up of statistics to the credit of the Government, and we cannot forget that there has been a reduction in hospital building and in the extension of hospitals and the doing of necessary repairs during the past year.
I appeal to the Minister to recognise that the one-apartment or two-apartment houses, of which we have so many in Scotland, are not good places in which mothers should have their confinements and that there may be a temptation to take this proferred grant of £3 and stay at home. A mother with a "steering" family—to use a Scottish expression— would be better away from home during the period of her confinement. She would be better away from home worries and the job of looking after small children and preparing meals. Did we not build up the home help service to provide assistance at that time so that the mother should be relieved of her worries and her obligations to the family? It seems to me that this Bill is a most dangerous inroad into the social service which we were building up and which was to be applied in a way different altogether from that envisaged in this proposal to give a grant in respect of confinement at home.
A doctor friend of mine, talking the other day about hospitals long ago, said that hospitals could be no longer regarded, as they were in the old days, as a gateway leading to death. Rather they were now regarded as a window opening to life. That is true, and we are all proud of our hospital services. Now a grant is to be provided to persuade mothers from using the hospital service.

Mr. Turton: Mr. Turton  indicated dissent—

Mr. Manuel: The Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head. He does not know Scotland very well and I want to know what assessment he has made of Scotland in connection with this Bill.

We are introducing a bad thing in this Bill. We are introducing a temptation which, in certain economic circumstances, will tend to make an expectant mother remain at home instead of going to hospital, where, if anything did go wrong, all the skill of the hospital staff would be at the mother's disposal to save either her life or that of her baby or the lives of both.
The Government would be far better employed building more hospital maternity accommodation and making extensions where necessary, using bricks and mortar instead of the £3 grant they envisage in this Bill. I ask that consideration should be given to the points I have raised, which are sincerely held in many local authority circles throughout Scotland.

9.15 p.m.

Major Sydney Markham: No one in the House this evening could have failed to notice the difference in temper and approach compared with that of yesterday or the greater part of last week. The House was then not at its best and it more than once attained notoriety as an example of how a democracy should not be run. Tonight, when we have all been addressing ourselves to human problems of first-rate importance, the speakers have been worth listening to, and I venture to predict that the amount of Press space allotted to our proceedings today will be less than that which was allotted even to a few minutes of what was talked about yesterday.
I have been very impressed with the quality of the speeches this evening, but there is one subject upon which I am not convinced. The argument has been advanced by several hon. Members opposite that there should be a deliberate move on the part of the Ministry to see that every mother approaching a confinement should be advised to go into hospital. Some said that 100 per cent. of all confinements should take place there.

Mr. Manuel: While it is possible that I gave that impression, I meant that the decision should be a voluntary one by the mother. I certainly did not mean that there should be a rigorous application of State control and that mothers should be told that they must remain at home or must go to hospital, although my whole inclination is that the mother should go to hospital.

Major Markham: I am very glad to have that explanation.
There is a good deal of difference of opinion here. The wish of certain hon. Members opposite including, I believe, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), was that every woman approaching a confinement should be induced, persuaded or educated to the point where she would want to have her child born in hospital. I disagree with that point of view. I speak as the father of five.

Mr. Manuel: Living in a single end?

Major Markham: I shall come to that in a moment. The first of my children was born in a maternity home, but my wife saw to it that the remaining four were born at home. Many women would far rather have their children born at home than go to the strange and, very often, unsympathetic surroundings of a hospital.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Many women in nice houses.

Major Markham: The position of Scotland has been mentioned. For half a century Scotland has been notorious for its high infant mortality rate. It once had the lowest rate in the British Empire, but it has lost that proud position. During 1942 I remember that no less eminent a person than Lord, then Sir John, Boyd Orr was invited to carry out a special inquiry into the high mortality rates in Scotland.
The subsequent report was one of the worst ever published, and since that date infantile mortality rates have not improved vis-a-vis those in certain counties in England. I represent part of a county in England which has the lowest infant mortality rate in the whole of the British Isles—Buckinghamshire. With Dorset, Hertfordshire and Wiltshire, we have had the lowest infant mortality rates for the last 50 years. In these counties fewer women seek to go into hospitals for the birth of their children than in any other area in Britain. In the whole of North Buckinghamshire there is not one maternity hospital.

Mr. Bence: There are no factories either.

Major Markham: Oh, yes. We have one of the largest railway factories in the whole country, at Wolverton.
Educated opinion among the women of this country is that if things can be properly arranged at home it is far better to have the child at home than in hospital. We men speak under difficulties about this, and we would be wise to listen to our womenfolk. I can only quote my own wife's opinion, that the moment a woman is taken away from her home and put into hospital for her confinement she begins to worry about what is happening at home. That is a profound psychological disturbance at a time when she should not be psychologically disturbed, and I think the Government are wise to encourage as many women as possible to have their children in the natural conditions of the home.

Mr. Manuel: A woman does not usually worry when she has a good husband.

Major Markham: If all women had husbands like me they might be worrying all day and all night.
Given certain conditions, to which I will refer in a moment, women would far rather have their children in their own homes, in conditions they have chosen, than go to hospital, which, after all, is a strange and foreign place with a new atmosphere. They are bound to worry about home conditions while in hospital.

Mrs. Cullen: I wonder how many one-apartment and two-apartment houses there are in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

Major Markham: I promised that I would deal with that, and I will.
Perhaps I might, with modesty, mention that I have written on this subject with the greatest sincerity, and gone into the question of why the Scottish infant mortality rate was so high compared with the more favoured counties of Buckinghamshire, Dorset, Wiltshire, and Hertfordshire. There were certain basic conditions, one of which was housing. Do not let anyone assume that everything is lovely in the garden in Buckinghamshire. It is not. In the village of Wing there are some of the worst slum conditions in the whole country, with people living in former Air Force and Army huts, without proper damp courses, or weatherproofing; with conditions so "lousy" that we in Buckinghamshire are absolutely ashamed


of them. We are doing our best to remedy these things, but it takes time.
I have seen conditions in Scotland for myself, in the great cities of Glasgow, Edinburgh and Perth, the like of which is not to be found anywhere else in the British Empire except in the native quarters of cities like Johannesburg. It is disgraceful. One of the best things done by the Government is the way in which they have speeded up the building of houses, in the whole of the British Isles. This is one of the ways of tackling the problem of infant mortality. These people must be rehoused, and we are tackling that problem realistically. But that is only one angle to the solution. I do not believe that the whole of this terrific problem of infant mortality in Scotland would entirely disappear if in the next three years every family could be rehoused. There are other factors.
One of those factors is the lack of education among the girls of Scotland in these important subjects compared with the education of girls in England. Here I do not speak from first-hand experience, but I quote from a very eminent Socialist, Lord Boyd Orr, in his Report on Infant Mortality in Scotland, in 1942, in which he said that one of the great causes of the high infant mortality rate in Scotland was the lack of domestic education amongst the young girls in Scotland, and he recommended that special methods of teaching be introduced into the schools in Scotland. That is a very important point.
But even given improvement in housing in Scotland and improvement in the education of the young girls in Scotland, there is still a third thing lacking in Scotland compared with the favoured counties of England, and that is the midwifery service. We cannot expect to have happy, comfortable, successful home confinements without a first-class midwifery service, and Scotland has not got that in comparison with what obtains in the most favoured districts of England. It is to that that attention should be directed. If such points as these were covered we should see a great reduction in the infant mortality rates of Scotland in the not too distant future.
It is not right to suggest that the best way of decreasing infant mortality rates in Scotland is to get every woman willy-nilly into a hospital for her confinement.

The ideal place is the home, but with it there must go a good midwifery or medical service. Given that, we should see a vast improvement.

9.26 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith): I rise to give an assurance to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel). Before I do so I want to tell him that I listened with very great care to everything he said, but I could not help feeling that all his arguments had been fully answered in advance either by my right hon. Friend or by the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Manuel: I listened most carefully to the Parliamentary Secretary, but he made no reference to housing conditions in Scotland. The gravamen of my case was the conditions resulting from the small houses in Scotland. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot ride off on that.

Commander Galbraith: In my opinion, every argument put forward by the hon. Member was fully answered in advance. As to the assurance, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was fully consulted on every point in connection with this matter as it might affect Scotland. The hon. Gentleman concluded his speech by saying that we were doing a bad thing. If we are doing a bad thing, let him take the only course open to him and go into the Lobby and vote against the Bill.

9.27 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I do not see any reason for the Joint Under-Secretary's carping and crab-bit notes, especially when his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham (Major Markham) has already given away the case so far as Scotland is concerned.
If we are to have an increase in home confinements which the poor are being tempted to bring about—the rich will not be tempted under this provision—we require a much better midwifery service than the one which has been described by an hon. Member opposite tonight. The hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham, who has taken a great interest in this matter as it affects Scotland, has condemned out of hand the very means


and instrument with which the Government expect to carry out the policy embodied in the Bill. We have been told by him that the Scottish midwifery system is out of date and imperfect; and yet that is the service which will deal with those who are tempted by the £3 home confinement allowance.
I do not know what hon. Members opposite find funny about this. If they want another good joke, let them go back to the bar. This is a serious problem. I would remind the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis), who pretends to have such a passionate interest at all times in the family and its welfare, that this is a serious matter affecting the mothers of the country at the most difficult time of their lives. I fail to see any reason for levity about it. However, the Bill itself is frivolous in that it offers the temptation of only £3 for the home confinement, and the other provisions in the Bill relating to benefits, partly cancelled by contributions, over increased periods rather trifle with the problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) made it clear that the problem is infinitely more difficult for Scottish mothers than it is for those on this side of the Border. That is not a Nationalist case or anything of that sort; everybody knows that the Scottish housing position is five or six times worse than that in England and Wales. Lord Boyd-Orr in his Reports was one of those who agreed with that. The Joint Under-Secretary of State will not dispute it, nor will the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham, who has often brought that matter in past years to the attention of the House. Therefore, the position in Scotland is going to be infinitely worse, and we should have thought that the Secretary of State for Scotland, our Cabinet watchdog, and the Joint Undersecretaries, who do most of the barking for the right hon. Gentleman in this House, would have brought a greater influence to bear on the Minister of National Insurance about the special conditions in Scotland.
It is going to be quite impossible to act on the lines suggested in this Bill in an area like, for example, the Gorbals. My hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mrs. Cullen) spoke with feeling and

knowledge on this subject. To offer an inducement of £3 to a woman in the Gorbals is going to tempt her to her death in many cases and, after all, temptation is at its strongest where the need is greatest and where the housing conditions are the worst. I think this is a most dangerous thing to do.
This Bill may relieve the hospitals of some pressure, but it is putting that pressure on the local doctors, on the district nurse and on the members of the family who must all share in the worry and disturbance as well as the mother. I do not for one moment believe that £3 is going to cover the additional expense of a confinement at home, no matter what the Advisory Committee said. We have most of us had experience in our family of these things, and £3 does not go a long way nowadays.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance said that he accepted the views of the Advisory Committee without question and that he had not gone into the evidence on the question of the grants in detail. Nor, he added, did he want to. He had heard mentioned sums of as much as £10 and others as low as £2, and the Ministry had settled on £3. That was pretty near the lowest sum mentioned. At the same time he did seem wisely to have disregarded the Committee's recommendations when it came to a matter of the additional contributions. I wish he had abandoned their recommendation for the inadequate £3 and put his own interpretation, again more generously, upon what he thought ought to be given.
If this £3 is going to be looked upon as compensation for the additional expense of a confinement at home, then I say it is no use. It is putting temptation before the poorest people, because those whom it will tempt are the people most in need, and the people most in need are as a general rule the worst housed in the country. Those in the worst housing conditions are facing the greatest risk at childbirth.
I wish this Bill had not been brought forward in this form. We on this side of the House should not be supporting it too uncritically in its present form. I hope that in the Committee stage there will be radical alterations in it, and I hope that this party of ours, the T.U.C.,


despite its earlier support for certain parts of the Measure, and the National Council of Labour Women will come round to my view and be consistent with the past Labour Party advocacy that 100 per cent. of these confinements take place where all the specialist and institutional skill and treatment is available and where there is proper full-time skilled nursing for all these women regardless of financial needs.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

UNIVERSITY OF ST. ANDREWS [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees). —(Queen's Recommendation signified.)

[Mr. HOPKIN MORRIS in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for the re-organisation of University education in St. Andrews and Dundee, to amend the constitution of the University of St. Andrews, of University College, Dundee, and of other bodies or institutions concerned, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament, to an amount approved by the Treasury of all expenses incurred in the execution of the said Act by the Commissioners appointed thereunder, including such remuneration as the Treasury may determine to be payable to persons employed by the said Commissioners.— [Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

ESTIMATES

Lord John Hope discharged from the Select Committee on Estimates; Mr. Ormsby-Gore added.—[Mr. Wills.]

EXPORTS TO CHINA

9.38 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Control of Trade by Sea (China and North Korea) Order, 1953 (S.I., 1953, No. 434), dated 13th March, 1953, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th March, be annulled.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it would be for the convenience of the House if we discussed this Prayer with the next one on the Order Paper, as they are closely connected.

Mr. Speaker: I think that that would be a convenient course.

Mr. Ede: Thank you, Sir.
These two Prayers relate to the present position that has arisen in the Far East as a result of the military operations that are being conducted there. We are not at war but, unfortunately, numbers of men belonging to our Forces and of those of our allies are being killed and wounded and subjected to all the hazards generally associated with war. I have no doubt that at some time in the not distant future it will be necessary for Her Majesty's Government and other Governments in various parts of the world to discuss exactly the kind of definition and general international law that will prevail in circumstances such as those of the present.
I want to make it quite clear that Her Majesty's Opposition are not in any way anxious that strategic or military material of value should reach the people who are at the moment engaged in fighting the Forces with which our own troops are serving. However, we feel it desirable that some explanation should be given to the House of the reason for making these two new Orders.
These two Prayers have been on the Order Paper for some time and, by mutual arrangement with Her Majesty's Government, we have postponed bringing them forward in view of the delicate and, we hope, improved situation that appears to be coming about in the Far East. Nevertheless, it is clear that even if things move at the best, they will probably move slowly; in fact, it will probably be a better sign of ultimate


success if some of the movements are slow rather that rapid. These two Prayers could not be moved after next week and, therefore, it is desirable that there should be some explanation given by the Government this evening.
Briefly to recapitulate the situation, on 31st January, 1951, when my right hon. Friends and I were the advisers of His then Majesty, the General Assembly of the United Nations passed by 44 votes to seven, with eight abstentions, a resolution originated by the United States condemning the Peking Government for engaging in aggression in Korea and recommending, among other things, the study of further measures to be taken to circumvent this aggression.
Following this, a group of 12 nations, known as the Additional Measures Committee, on which this country was represented, considered a United States proposal for an embargo on the sending of strategic materials to China. This resolution was eventually endorsed by the General Assembly on 18th May, 1951, by 47 votes to none, with eight abstentions and with the Soviet group of countries taking no part either in the debate or in the voting. The United Kingdom, which was then being administered by the last Government, voted for the resolution.
That resolution recommended all States, and not only United Nations members, to apply an embargo on strategic materials for China. It contained measures against transhipment, but it did not lay down a definition of "strategic materials." I understand, however, that from time to time lists have been drawn up indicating what is regarded at a particular moment as strategic material which falls within the resolution passed by the United Nations.
By 16th July, 1951, 35 States had reported that they were carrying out the resolution and some others, including the Dominion of India, said that they had in any case no trade in such materials. Following the United States resolutions, the U.S. Government applied a complete embargo upon trade with China. The previous Government of this country never agreed to do this, and I do not think that Her Majesty's present advisors have accepted that point of view either.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Nutting): The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Nutting) indicated assent.

Mr. Ede: The policy followed while the Labour Government were in office was fully set out in various statements made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Helens (Sir H. Shawcross), then President of the Board of Trade. For instance, on 19th June, 1951, as appears in column 246 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, he said:
… it is not in our intention to impose a total embargo on trade with China.… We are satisfied that the measures which we have been operating have been effective in preventing any supplies of substantial military or strategic importance reaching China from the United Kingdom. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 19th June, 1951; Vol. 489, c. 246.]
My right hon. Friend the then Prime Minister also indicated the same policy in answer to a Question on 3rd May, 1951.
These statements add up to the following: That trade with China, like trade with other Communist countries, had been subject to restrictions by means of a prohibited list and a restricted list even before China entered the Korean war. After the United Nations resolutions, the procedure was tightened up. Control was exercised partly by Statutory Orders and partly by co-operation with trade associations.
All goods of direct military importance and many other goods which might directly assist military operations were totally prohibited. This prohibition covered all military equipment, aircraft, specialised vehicles, various metals and alloys, and many industrial goods, including all machine tools. Many other goods were restricted to what were regarded as normal quantities for civilian use in China. Much controversy centred around the export of rubber, by mid-1951 this trade had already been stopped.
Hong Kong, which is, after all, an emporium through which many British goods reach China, applied controls similar to those exercised by the United Kingdom. As an indication of the scale of China trade the value of the total United Kingdom exports to China in the main categories in the first three months of 1951 appears to be £1,291,000. That policy seems to have been continued ever since with only minor modifications of categories and procedure. Questions have


been put from time to time to Her Majesty's present advisers on points of detail, but the answers indicate no substantial change.
The new Order, No. 434, does not appear to alter the policy relating to trade with China, but seeks to stop a leak in the existing policy. The Foreign Secretary answered a Question on that point on the 18th March, 1953, and we understand its objective is to prevent British ships from loading at non-British ports for carriage to China of goods which were in any case prohibited from loading at a British port. That appears to be the object of this. We understand that simultaneously, but not under the Order, steps are being taken administratively to prevent foreign ships carrying strategic materials to China from being bunkered in ports under British control.
It is on these points that I desire to put some questions to the Under Secretary and I hope that we may get an answer from him on each of them. The first question is: will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the main line of policy is unchanged? The "New York Times," on 8th March, suggested that new categories are being added and we know that the decision to make this Order, announced in Washington at the conclusion of the talks between the Foreign Secretary and Mr. Dulles, has been represented in the United States as a major extension of the measures adopted by this country in June, 1951, as a result of the United Nations resolution about an embargo of the supply of arms, ammunition and instruments of war to China.
It is being represented in the United States, we understand, as the imposition of a blockade in fact if not in form. We do not take the view ourselves that either the old Orders or the new one justify such an interpretation and we should like to know what the new measures mean in real terms. Is there some substantial alteration in the policy, which may be designed for stopping up a small leak, or is it—as has been represented overseas—something quite substantial, bringing about in the end something approaching a blockade? Can we know what goods have been slipping through the controls and in what quantities? Where did they originate and if this is something substantial who will be affected? What foreign ships engaged in

this trade have been bunkering in British ports, and at what ports?
If, as we believe is probable, the truth is that the quantity involved is trivial, I would ask the Under-Secretary whether he thinks it was wise timing to make a gesture of this kind—which, on the supposition I am now putting forward is almost an empty one—which so looked like strengthening the measures against China that the "New York Times" of 7th March had a headline:
Britain agrees to step up economic war on Peiping.
This was at a time when dangerous statements were being made about Far Eastern policy; and when Her Majesty's Government ought to be advocating a realistic attitude toward China.
I would also ask whether these measures affect Commonwealth shipping and whether there was any Commonwealth consultation before or after the decision? This applies particularly to Ceylon who is refusing to stop all exports of rubber to China. Does this mean that shipping flying the flag of Ceylon will be refused bunkering at Singapore?
A number of my hon. Friends will be raising specific points with the hon. Gentleman regarding particular trades but I would like to quote an article from the "Coventry Evening Telegraph" of 14th March, in which it is stated:
A glance at a trade table … shows that the field (of trade with China) is far vaster than textiles. It includes raw and manufactured iron and steel, non-ferrous metals, machinery, chemicals, drugs, vehicles, and many other things. In 1947, the total we sent to China was £12,805,000 … Lancashire business men believe that the field for textile machinery in China will be far more encouraging at some future date … We sent China last year £494,000 worth of textile machinery—a mere drop in the ocean of her needs … Although the number of British ships carrying goods to and from the vast Chinese mainland is only a twentieth of what it was, every day a ship clears Hong Kong for China …
I would emphasise that any measure that Her Majesty's Government take to prevent the supply of materials which may be used in connection with hostilities against Her Majesty's troops in China will continue to receive the full support of hon. Members on this side of the House. But we require an assurance that in this matter we are not departing to any extent from the policy pursued by the former Government all the while that


principle I have just enunciated is observed. I hope that the Undersecretary will be able to give us an explicit assurance on the issues I have raised.

9.54 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: At this moment, as throughout the last two years and more, military operations are going on in the Korean Peninsula. In those operations China is fighting on one side and we are fighting on the other. However that situation may have come about, I am sure there is no hon. Member of this House who would think it right that we should engage in any kind of trade which directly supplemented the forces arrayed against our troops in the Korean Peninsula.
But not all wars are of the same kind. Some are total all-out wars fought on either side for total victory and for the unconditional surrender of the enemy. Others are strictly localised and limited wars. It is obvious that the economic policy which is right for the one kind of war may not be the right one to apply to another. There has been no difference between the main parties in the House, or between the policy of the late Government and the policy of the present Government, in that we in this country have always believed that the war in Korea ought to be limited and localised so far as it can be.
That is not everybody's view. There is another view, which is that the Western world as a whole is engaged in an all-out conflict with the Communist world as a whole and that our economic policy ought to be dictated not by the ordinary economic and trading considerations but by quasi-military considerations. If the object is to bring to an end the regime which we dislike, then, of course, we conduct our trade policies accordingly and we willingly and cheerfully submit to all kinds of economic sacrifices and sufferings on our own part to make sure that the countries arrayed against us do not benefit by our economic activities.
It would be fair to say that the second of those two policies is, in the main, the policy of the United States of America, whereas the first is the policy of this country. There is not a conflict as to

Korea, but there is a deep conflict about our economic policies considered from that point of view.
What we have to consider is how far these Orders were necessary; how far they contribute to the purely limited objective of not sending or selling strategic materials to the enemy forces in Korea; and how far they inflict upon the trade of our own country wider and deeper damage than is necessary for that limited purpose. The first point that strikes me about the main Order, No. 434, is its extreme width. Although it is entitled:
The Control of Trade by Sea (China and North Korea) Order, 1953 
the scope of the Order is very much wider than that. It is not until we get very nearly to the end of the Order, in paragraph 3 (2, b), that China or North Korea comes into the picture at all. The purpose of the Order, so far as it can be discovered from the terms of the Order itself, is to make it impossible for any British ship to leave any British port without a licence from the Board of Trade.
Why was it necessary to have an Order as wide as that? It must be an additional irritation, if no more, upon the trading community. It is not limited in any way And kind of ship above the tonnage of 500 tons sailing from anywhere to anywhere is covered by this Order, and is prevented from doing so unless it has a licence in advance from the President of the Board of Trade. It is not only that it covers every ship sailing under the British flag, but that the conditions on which the President of the Board of Trade many grant the licence are completely undefined. I quote from paragraph 3 (2):
Any licence granted under this Order may be granted subject to such limitations and conditions as the Minister or person granting the licence thinks fit to impose with respect to:

(a) the trades in which the ship may engage and the voyages which may be undertaken by the ship;
(b) the class of cargoes or passengers which may be carried in the ship for the purpose of being put off in China or North Korea or within the territorial waters of those countries:
(c) the hiring of the ship."

The only limitation, the only restriction upon the Minister is when he is talking about the class of cargo or passengers being put off in North Korea; in that respect only he is limited to China and North Korea and considerations arising


out of that. So far as the hiring of the ship is concerned, so far as the trades in which the ship may engage and the voyages which it may be undertaking are concerned, these restrictions are not limited to China and North Korea at all.
Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite used to be extremely eloquent when they sat on this side of the House about the dangers of delegated legislation. They used to say that it was quite wrong for the House to part with this control of legislation, and, although they were compelled to concede that there were many purposes for which delegated legislation was necessary, and that did not stop the Leader of the Liberal Party saying that there should not be delegated legislation at all, nevertheless, they said that it should be severely limited and that we should examine every Order very closely in order to see under what power it was issued and to see that the powers that were delegated were no greater than those that were required for the purpose.
It does appear on the face of it that the powers granted by this Order by delegated legislation to the Minister are far in excess of those which will be necessary for the limited objective which my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who moved the Prayer, said was the only objective of the Order. Is this really a time when we should inflict greater irritation and difficulties upon those who are trying to maintain British trade into the world? Surely not. Was it really impossible for the Government to devise an Order which would have limited its powers to ships in the territorial waters of China and North Korea, and would have limited its power to interfere with cargo and passengers to those strategic materials with which, it is said by my right hon. Friend and apparently agreed, we are alone concerned.
In order to prevent some British ships from taking some strategic materials to China, North Korea and those territorial waters, was it really necessary to impose upon every British ship sailing from any British port on any voyage whatever the necessity to get a general licence and to give the Minister power to impose any condition whatever within this narrow objective, or far outside it, without any control of Parliament at all?
It really seems to be an abuse of the process of delegated legislation which

not even the most devoted advocate of the necessity of delegated legislation in modern times would support. But there are dangers involved in it, because if we go back to the conflict of ideas with which I began, the House will see that under the guise of giving the Government power to prevent trade in strategic goods in a limited area it is giving the Government complete power to control all shipping and all trade. Surely we ought to have some explanation of that.
The second point to which I wish to draw attention is that under this Order the conditions imposed by the Minister need not be restricted to the narrow class of strategic goods and materials which my right hon. Friend had in mind, but could cover everything prohibited under the Battle Act. I am not now talking about what may actually be the intention of the Government, but about what powers we ought to give them. I submit that there is no doubt that under this Order the Government could impose a total embargo, not only upon trade with China, but upon trade with anybody.
There is no limitation in the Order at all. If the President of the Board of Trade were to decide that from tomorrow onwards we ought not to trade with France, there is nothing in the Order which would limit his power so to impose conditions upon the granting of licences as to prevent the cross-Channel trade between the South Coast of England and the North Coast of France. I think the Minister of State said in an answer in the House a little while ago that we have no intention of imposing a general blockade on China. But some American newspapers—for instance, the one to which my right hon. Friend referred—have another view.
So far as the terms of the Order are concerned, if while it is in force this Government or any Government wished to limit all trade with China, or with anybody else they would have complete power to do it, and once the House parted with this Order it would cease to have any right to criticise or to control the Government's action with regard to it. Surely it was not necessary to have an Order so wide as that. Why should not the Order have strictly and rigidly defined those countries and those territorial waters to which it applies?

Colonel L. E. Crosthwaite-Eyre: If the hon. Gentleman will refer to paragraph 1 (1) of the Order to which he refers, he will see that it is specifically laid down to what it refers.

Mr. Silverman: Paragraph (1) says:
This Order shall come into operation on the 17th day of March. 1953, and may be cited as The Control of Trade by Sea (China and North Korea) Order, 1953.
Is that the point?

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Yes.

Mr. Silverman: I am not concerned about how the Order may be cited. I am concerned with what it does. I do not want to repeat all that I have said on the subject, but if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will read the Order I think he will find that there are no such limitations as I think there ought to be, and as I gather from his intervention he thinks there ought to be.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: And as there are.

Mr. Silverman: Where are they?

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: If the hon. Gentleman likes me to interrupt him—

Mr. Silverman: I do not want to delay the House. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman thinks that there are words of limitation in the Order, all I can say to him very sincerely is that I have been unable to find them, and that if he speaks later in the debate and will draw my attention to such words of limitation I shall be very grateful. In the meantime, I shall go on with my speech on the assumption that the words are not there.
Why should not the Order have been limited strictly and rigidly to the countries with the territorial waters of which the policy of the Government is concerned? It could have been done quite easily. [Interruption.] If the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) wishes me to send him in the course of a post a draft Order which I would draw up, I will undertake to do it. I cannot do it now in his presence, but I am sure that there will be no more technical difficulty in drawing up an Order limited to some countries and some territorial waters than there was in drawing up an Order such as this giving power to put a general embargo

upon all trade by sea between this country and any other country. That limitation should be there.
The second limitation which should be there is this: I can see no insuperable difficulty—I do not say there are no difficulties, because this class of legislation has its technical difficulties—in having an Order which, instead of giving the Government power to prohibit any kind of goods gives them only a limited power to prohibit scheduled goods. Why should we leave it in doubt? Why should we leave in doubt what the Government regard as strategic materials and what they do not? Why should there not be a definite schedule of contraband? We should be able to know positively what goods are contraband and what are not.
I am sure that the House will agree that if there is any doubt about it the benefit of the doubt should be given to the trader and not to the Government. If it is possible to argue with any degree of plausibility that the matter is unclear and could be made clear, it should therefore be made clear. It would be better to have a scheduled list of prohibited and contraband goods instead of leaving the matter so ill-defined as to make it possible for the Government to declare contraband any kind of goods for as long as they like and without giving any reason. There is no reason in the world why that could not have been done.
I hope that the points that I have made so far will be accepted by the Government as being genuine, constructive points which it was perfectly legitimate to make, and that the questions that I have asked will be accepted as perfectly legitimate questions on which to ask the Government for an explanation when we are dealing with something so vital, especially at this time, as the foreign trade of this country.
I conclude, therefore, by drawing attention to the irreparable damage that might be inflicted upon this country by going further at this time, for this limited purpose, than we need to go. The Chinese market is a traditional British market. It goes back many centuries, and certainly right up to not very many years ago it was one of the vital markets for our export trade. Until the early years of the 1920s the Chinese market absorbed quite a substantial proportion of Lancashire


cotton manufactured goods, and the decline of the Lancashire cotton trade between the two wars—a very, very serious decline as hon. Members concerned with it will remember—is largely, though by no means entirely, attributable to the loss of the Chinese market to the Japanese. Until recently the Japanese have been out of that market and we have the opportunity to recapture it.
When we deal with the economic problems of this country, everyone says that we must find some way of making our living otherwise than by dependence solely or mainly upon the American dollar market. Indeed, there can be nothing more ridiculous than that the people of this country should go on straining every nerve to produce goods and export them to the one market in all the world that does not need them and will do everything in its power to keep them out. That is not a criticism of the American market. We would do the same in the same position, and we would be right.
There is no reason in the world, on ordinary economic considerations, why the American market should absorb our surplus manufactured goods. The Americans can make them all themselves quite as well as we can, and cheaper. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] To a great extent that is true. I am not saying anything to depreciate the necessity, in present circumstances, of maintaining our sterling-dollar balance. All that I am saying is that there is something distorted and unbalanced in a world economy which forces us to export our manufactured goods to a reluctant market, which is almost saturated with its own goods, whereas all over the world there are markets waiting to absorb our goods and needing them. Our economic policy ought to be directed to redressing that balance and straightening out that distortion.

Mr. Beresford Craddock: If the hon. Gentleman is advocating trade with China, I should be interested in his views on the ability of China to pay for British goods.

Mr. Silverman: I do not want to go into that at length, and I think that it would be out of order if I attempted to do so. If the hon. Member will not press me for argument and proof today, my own belief is that we have an expanding Chinese market and that they will be able

to pay for all the services which they need from us with the things they produce. The whole history of Anglo-Chinese trade proves that that is so. In so far as these measures would interfere with the redress of that lack of balance and the straightening out of that distortion of world trade, they are wrong and ought to be changed and limited in order to make sure that they do as little damage as possible.
Some people talk as though world trade can be postponed until international peace has been established. That is the wrong view. Of all the means and all the instruments at our disposal—and I am sure everyone thinks we should use them all—by which we can bring about an alleviation of the international position and try to get nearer to an established and permanent peace, the most useful method is to develop trade among all the nations of the world, without regard to ideological differences or political considerations. While fighting is going on strategic materials must naturally be withheld but, subject to that overriding consideration, the more we can do to restore world trade on a general basis the further and the quicker we shall advance towards world peace.

10.22 p.m.

Colonel L. E. Crosthwaite-Eyre: Listening to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) I was not surprised that, despite the argument which we have before us, he managed to introduce the United States of America. It would be most rash for us to be led astray by the theory that because it may be impossible to export certain goods to the United States we must export them to other countries.
His argument is based on the view that a large amount of goods and services should be provided to China. To a certain extent he is ready to ignore the war conditions which prevail. One might almost say that he is one who looks so much to what he believes to be the ideal that he is quite prepared to ignore the present circumstances which surround us.

Mr. S. Silverman: I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not wish or mean to be unfair. I made it quite clear in my speech that I recognised that war conditions prevailed and that they imposed obligations upon us all in regard


to strategic materials, but I drew the distinction which every hon. Member of the House in any party has always drawn between a localised and limited war and a general war.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Certainly. I accept the hon. Member's contention. He has taken refuge behind the barrier of the weakest argument and has used terms like "strategic."

Mr. Silverman: I did not use it originally.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Who is to say what is a strategic material? The hon. Member may consider a certain material as strategic when hon. Members on this side would not, and vice versa. He would say that there are many materials that can be sent to China; that he is certain that they are non-strategic and are things that could be sent, but who is he to judge?

Mr. Silverman: The hon. and gallant Gentleman will perceive that the logical result of his argument is that one cannot be certain of not aiding the enemy's war effort unless one refuses to sell him anything at all. In saying that he is going much further than his Government would go.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The hon. Gentleman is now taking the argument a step further. At the moment I am only dealing with his speech, in which he made an impassioned plea that, whilst he would keep strategic materials away from China, he would be perfectly prepared to allow all the rest to go there. That was his statement, if I may truncate it. but it seems to me to be the most monstrous thing.

Mr. Silverman: It is the view of the Government too.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The one thing we must ensure is that no material, be it called strategic, tactical or anything else, should be allowed to reach China at the moment if it will prolong the war in Korea or promote the "cold war" in East Asia, if I may put it like that. I think that speeches such as those from the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman opposite do an enormous amount of harm. They are trying, in a sense, to say that we can debar with our left hand what we do not like and

accept what we want with our right. That seems to me quite impossible. If we believe there is a crisis in East Asia, that there is a cold war, and that in Korea there is a war, the one thing we must do is to see that raw materials, whether they be called strategic or anything else, do not reach the foes who are fighting us.
I must admit that my objection to these Orders tonight is because I do not think they are nearly strong enough to meet the needs of the country at the moment. We are leaving far too many leaks; we are allowing far too many goods to get through, in one form or another, which may aid those who are fighting us. In contradistinction to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, who wants a relaxation, I believe that what we need is a tightening up; that we want to ensure that, no matter what temporary hardship may be caused, none of these things which we know the enemy want reach them.
When the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne says that these Orders may be prolonged and extended to any country, I ask him to look at paragraph 3 (1). where he will see that they are limited to this particular issue of China and Korea; that all that is meant to be done is to see that we prevent raw materials and strategic necessities from reaching the Chinese.

Mr. Silverman: I am sorry to interrupt again and I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for giving way. I do not follow his argument about this. Paragraph 3 (1) says:
 Notwithstanding "—
certain things which I need not read—
no British ship to which this Order applies shall on and after the 31st day of March, 1953, proceed to sea from any port"—
and I leave out certain words—
except under the authority of a licence granted under this Order.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The hon. Gentleman will be wiser than I am about this, but I understand the legal construction of that is to make the Order refer to ships going to sea in respect of this present Order. The hon. Gentleman may contradict me, but I understand that is the legal construction of those words.
I wish to ask whoever replies to this debate to answer one or two questions.


Whilst we have these Orders to serve the purpose for which they are laid, I believe that we should stop any possible leak that occurs through other channels. I have mentioned the case of Hong Kong before, and given various figures. Can we believe that 20 million Hong Kong dollars' worth of rubber could be imported into that Colony unless it is to be exported elsewhere? Can we believe that 42 million Hong Kong dollars' worth of explosives and chemicals were rightfully imported into Hong Kong, particularly when we know that only 10 million of the 42 million were retained in the Colony? Can we really say that we are happy when we know that of minerals, fuels, lubricants, etc., Hong Kong imported 130 million dollars' worth last year or, to give another figure which will be of great interest to the House, 144 million dollars' worth of machinery.

Mr. Harold Davies: And Japan 72 million dollars' worth.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I should like to make my own speech.
During last year Hong Kong imported 400 million dollars' worth of goods more than it exported. Where did the balance go? [An HON. MEMBER: "Where did it come from? "] It does not matter where it came from. The fact is that Hong Kong imported goods worth 400 million dollars more than the goods exported. The balance must have gone to China. We are told that the United States and Canada have put an embargo on imports into China. It is interesting to see that in the last year they imported 300 million dollars' worth of goods into Hong Kong. I have not been able to find the figures for Macao because they are very difficult to obtain.
On the other hand, out of reasonableness we may govern our own interests and prevent any European evasion of the regulations, but what is the good of doing all this in the face of the figures for Hong Kong? It is said that in Hong Kong no abuses have been found. I can only say that figures talk rather louder than do committees' reports. From the figures which I have given there seems to be a grave leak in Hong Kong to the detriment of the very things that we want to preserve. I hope that, so far from the House rescinding the Orders, it will reinforce them and ensure that the aims

to which we have set our purpose are properly maintained.

10.33 p.m.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: The speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) must have gravely embarrassed his Front Bench for he has been most strongly recommending the Orders to us on the grounds that he wants a total blockade of trade with China, whereas the Orders are being recommended to us by the Front Bench on the grounds that they want nothing of the sort.
His speech can only have stimulated the already lively anxieties which are felt by the Opposition about giving the Government the very wide powers contained in the Orders. I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) gave us the benefit of his legal mind in analysing these powers. Looking at the Orders quite independently and with a purely lay approach, I had come to the same conclusion that he has reached, that we are giving the Government powers so extensive that we are, in effect, losing control as a House over the conduct of our trade with China. That is an extremely serious thing.
We know perfectly well that already the operation of the embargo list under the original Orders drawn up following the United Nations Resolution in June. 1951, has not been satisfactorily under the control of this House. It has been extremely difficult for anyone interested to know what new items were being added to the embargo list, what export licences were or were not being given in particular cases. As the President of the Board of Trade will agree, the issuing of export licences has been varied considerably—sometimes an export licence has been issued for a commodity at one stage and not at another. There has been no clear pattern and, therefore, there has been no satisfactory control by this House.
But under this further step we are taking we are asking this House to agree that power should be given to licence British ships going to sea and once we have passed this Order, the terms of those licences will be outside the control of this House although they may contain


all sorts of regulations not only with regard to voyages and destination of the ships, but also with regard to the class of cargoes and passengers. Indeed, it means that all kinds of embargoes may be added without our having a direct control over them.
Already many of us on this side of the House, while being prepared to accept the necessity for the banning of the export of strategic materials in the Korean war situation, have been very unhappy about the way in which that word "strategic" has been interpreted. Innumerable Questions have been asked in the House. Why, for instance, under the original United Nations Resolution have export licences been denied for such things as electric motors of low capacity on the grounds that they are a war material? And motor jacks, and diesel engines of low speeds? All kinds of things which are clearly essential to the ordinary life of a country which is trying to industrialise itself have been put on the banned list.
Clearly the words "strategic material" can be interpreted so widely as to bring a blockade in at the back door. And with the mentality of hon. Gentlemen opposite, as expressed in the speech we have just heard from the hon. and gallant Gentleman, we have a right to be profoundly concerned about the powers we are giving.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The hon. Lady mentioned diesel engines as being clearly designed to promote the industrial efficiency of the country. Surely, if we promote the industrial efficiency of a country we increase its war potential?

Mrs. Castle: I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for so brilliantly underlining my argument and making my case for me. In effect he has come to us tonight and said, "Let us give these powers to the Government to ban the carrying of strategic cargoes," and then he says, "We should define as strategic material anything which contributes in any way to the industrial life of the country "—

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: No. I did not say that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Let me make my point clear. I said I hoped the hon. Laly would not defend the augmentation of the industrial life of

China if that meant an increase in its war potential to the detriment of our position.

Mrs. Castle: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is making the task of his own Front Bench almost impossible. If, for instance, we export wool tops to China, are we not, in effect, helping to clothe the soldiers? If we export fertilisers, are we not helping to keep Chinese people alive? And can it not be argued that a human being is a war potential? Are we then tonight being asked to starve the Chinese people by these Orders? Is that our policy in relation to China?
I think there is now proof positive, from every contribution which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has made, why we should be deeply alarmed at what many of us feel is a further step towards a total blockade of China. Let us make no mistake about it, when we look at the reasons for these Orders, which have been suddenly produced out of the blue, we find that they are purely political reasons and are dictated by the desires of the United States, which does believe in a total blockade of China. In the context in which these Orders have been brought forward, I think we have a right to say we should not give these powers to the Government, which is following the political principles not of this country but of a foreign country. I ask the hon. Gentleman who is to reply to the debate what other reasons he can give us for introducing these Orders.
Has there been any evidence from either side of the House that there have been any substantial leaks through the embargo by the export of strategic goods? There has never been any evidence produced in this House that such a thing has taken place. The reasons for the Orders must be regarded in the context of the visit of the Foreign Secretary to Washington and his talks with Mr. Foster Dulles and Mr. Eisenhower. After his return, as a concession to American thought, he produced these Orders. When he was asked in this House on 18th March by one of his hon. Friends about what would be the amount of trade to be affected by this Order, the answer he gave was:
I do not consider it is at all large."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1953; Vol. 513, c. 31.]
He went on to say how many people in the United States thought that it was


large. We are accepting pressure from outside to introduce a very serious innovation in the restriction of British trade with China. It is extremely serious when one thinks that the shipping companies themselves have resisted the control of our trade.
I suggest that when we see the political reasons for these Orders, we must bear in mind the whole background against which they have been made. Let us realise that we are not merely under pressure to close little gaps in the operation of the United Nations Resolution. That is not really what the United States Government and the Secretary of State are asking for. There has been an insidious encroachment in the last few months by the United States on the freedom of shipping of all its allies in relation to China, and if we give way on this, we shall not satisfy the desires of the United States. We shall not pacify them in regard to their desire for a blockade. We shall be asked to make another concession.
On 9th March I drew attention to another serious interference with shipping and trade which resulted from the decision of the Mutual Security Agency in the United States under which it placed a restriction on the carriage of goods to Formosa. Any shipping carrying mutual security goods to Formosa was, under the new regulations, to be prohibited from trading with the China coast within a period of 60 days of carrying their M.S.A. cargo. I pointed out that this was a quite ludicrous restriction because, when I talked to the shipping companies about it, they made it quite clear that it was not strategic materials which were involved.
There was a considerable amount of carriage by tramps, some of them British tramps, of fertilisers to Formosa, and, on the return journey, the ships brought goods back from China to the rest of the world. At no stage was there a suggestion that this was in any way cutting across the strategic issue; but as part of the policy of the United States of closing the ring round China in respect of all trade, legitimate or illegitimate, this new restriction was introduced, which crippled once again free trading by British ships.
We all ought to have been considerably concerned when reading in "The Times" the other day of the activities of Senator McCarthy, who has now turned the atten-

tion of his permanent investigating committee to the question of East-West trade. As if he did not have enough to do in other spheres, he has been interrogating both Mr. Stassen and Mr. Hanson, of the Mutual Security Agency, who is responsible for the enforcement of the conditions of the McCarran Act. In the course of his interrogation of Mr. Stassen—

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but how does all this affect the substance of the Orders now under consideration by the House? I quite appreciate that certain comparative matters, quite rightly, should be raised, but in connection with the Orders are we not getting rather wide of the subject?

Mr. Geoffrey Bing: Surely it is in order, if the allegation is, as it may well be, that these deplorable gentlemen who have been visiting this country have been putting pressure on hon. Gentlemen opposite, to refer to it in regard to this matter. Here were two gentlemen visiting this country, who come here to say that they are going to investigate and put pressure on various people. They have already put pressure on the Greek shipowners. How do we know that they are not trying to put it on to the British shipowners via hon. Gentlemen opposite?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I thought that the hon. Lady was in order, otherwise I should have stopped her.

Mrs. Castle: Thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am always grateful for your protection.
I was pointing out to the House something which should show that, if the Government took the whole question seriously, and if hon. Members opposite were really concerned with the stopping up of leaks in the operation of the United Nations Resolution, they would not wave aside so light-heartedly the evidence which I am bringing forward, and which my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) brought forward.
When we realise that these Orders have been introduced purely as a result of American pressure, as a concesssion made by the Foreign Secretary on his visit to Washington, in order to create a more


amicable atmosphere between us and the United States, it is important that we should bear in mind the following conversation which took place before Senator McCarthy's investigating committee. He asked Mr. Hanson, of the Mutual Security Agency, this question:
Do you consider it your job to eliminate all shipping to China?
According to "The Times," of 31st March, the eventual answer which was wrung from the wretched gentleman was that that was their "ultimate objective." In the light of that statement and of the notorious tirelessness of Senator McCarthy, we ought to consider this situation very seriously tonight.
We have all said that we are now on the threshold of hopeful new developments in international affairs. Certainly, we want to encourage and not to impede those favourable developments. It has been suggested in some quarters that just because there are favourable developments, the Members of this House should keep their mouths tightly closed and contribute nothing whatever to the development of world events.
I take the opposite view, and I ask the Government, in view of the fact that, since the Foreign Secretary's visit to Washington and the necessity which he felt to make this concession, there have been these hopeful new overtures both from the Soviet Union and from China —the armistice negotiations in Korea are beginning to take a more hopeful turn—whether it would not be our contribution to the lessening of international tension and to the creation of a more favourable international atmosphere if these Orders tonight were to be withdrawn.
Is it not time that this country took some initiative and some independence of action in trying to solve this acute situation of international tension? Are we always to wait until the "Big Brother" across the Atlantic has given the word to go? Cannot we decide here tonight, having the admission from the Foreign Secretary's own mouth that these Orders will be negligible in their effect, and remembering that the situation has changed since these Orders were introduced? The reaction of the Peking Government to these Orders was that they were evidence of the deep hos-

tility among the British people towards the Chinese; can we not prove tonight that that hostility does not exist by withdrawing these Orders?
When we took action under the original United Nations Resolution we took it as a member nation of the United Nations, and with approval of the United Nations; but since that time, there have been too many individual actions by individual countries which, I think, have not been authorised by the United Nations. This drift towards a total blockade has no United Nations' sanction, and I say that if there was a meeting of the full Assembly, and this issue was brought into the open, the decision would come down against any action tending to lead us towards such a blockade. Issues of peace and war are not merely topics for Parliamentary debate, and we should consider this most important subject in that light and in the light of the undeniable new developments.

10.53 p.m.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: I am glad of the opportunity to intervene in this debate because the question of trade between Britain and China is one of the greatest causes of friction between this country and the United States. Anyone who has knowledge of the United States knows that if ever the question of the Korean war is introduced, the first thing which is said is that the British have not done enough in Korea; and, secondly, that we have been half-hearted in our measures to prevent exports to China. I believe that the reason for this friction is in the relationship of the two countries to China, and I would like to say a few words on this.
No doubt as a result of the brilliant and forceful speech of the then Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), in 1949, the Labour Government decided to recognise China's new Government. Anyone looking up the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in HANSARD will see there a powerful argument for the recognition of a Government once established; but since that time, the attitude of Britain towards China has taken a different course. If one cares to follow through the negotiations in the United Nations from the beginning of 1951, one will find that since then, while the United States has been the prime mover in the


aggressor Resolution. Britain has been reluctant to support it.
I am sure my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger) will confirm that we said we would not support the aggressor Resolution unless it was agreed that there should be no talk of additional measures or sanctions until the Good Offices Committee said there was no hope of there being some compromise with China. By the time we reached the United Nations Resolution of the summer of 1951, when the Good Offices Committee had nothing to report, the embargo on strategic materials to China was reported and the British Government then decided that an embargo on strategic goods to China should be enforced.
I do not want to argue with hon. Members opposite about what are strategic goods. Obviously that is a question which to a certain extent has to be left to the experts. But I say that once we had fulfilled our obligations under the United Nations Resolutions, we were still left with a considerable divergence of opinion between this country and the United States. In my view, the difficulty into which the Government have got themselves is that they keep pretending that our policy is the same as United States policy and then cannot understand why the Americans are always pushing them to do more. That is the real difficulty.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): As I understand it, these Orders do not cover the general position. They cover only the position of British ships sailing from foreign ports.

Mr. Benn: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for enabling me, I hope, to point out the relevance of what I was saying. First, I am trying to address myself and the attention of the House to what I believe to be the reason for these Orders—that is to say, the negotiations which the Foreign Secretary had in Washington. The second point to which I draw attention is to where the Order lays down the rules of granting a licence and says that if any British ship is leaving any British or foreign port it must be granted a licence by the Minister of Transport. Previous speakers have followed the point that it is permissible to discuss British trade with China in the widest terms. I hope you will accept that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because that course

has been followed in the debate and previous occupants of the Chair have not objected.
I was saying that we are always getting ourselves into difficulties with the Americans because our spokesmen pretend that we are following the same policy when we are not. There are two ways out of the difficulty. The first is to follow the same policy as the Americans. I do not believe that the Government regard that as a sound step, but at any rate it is one way out of the difficulty. The other way, which I recommend, is for the Government to say to the Americans, when they are asked about these things, "We are following a different policy;" instead of making apologies they should be quite frank. Then we shall not get into the absurd position of seeming to be saying one thing while doing another.
I know that some hon. Members opposite think we ought to be following a more rigid policy. That is quite arguable, but while we continue the policy which the Government are now adopting, let us be frank with the Americans and tell them that we are following it and that it is different from their policy. Let us tell them that we think it is the right policy and that we do or do not intend to change it, as the case may be. It bedevils Anglo-American relations to an extraordinary degree if we get a reputation, and deserve a reputation, for pretending to be doing one thing when in fact we do another.
The question of whether there ought to be a total blockade or whether it ought to be a blockade in respect of a very limited list of strategic materials depends to a certain extent on how we interpret the war in which we are engaged. Some people, I notice from an intervention opposite, suggest that anything which contributes at all to China's economic well-being is a strategic export to China, but of course logic is not really a very good adviser in matters of this kind.
If we applied logic to military and economic problems in our relationship with China, we should find, first, that we had a total blockade, and, second, that we were following the policy of General MacArthur towards China—a policy which he repeated recently and which is the only logical policy to follow if one pursues logic to its conclusion. I do not think that view is accepted by this


Government and it was certainly not accepted by the late Government. I think it would be a good thing if the Government took this opportunity of reaffirming quite frankly but without discourtesy what our stand is on this question of economic relations with China.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle) quoted one passage from Senator McCarthy's investigation into East-West trade, and I think that is a point on which the Government should give her some reply, for this reason—that under the United Nations Resolution every country is free to follow its own policy about exports to China.
Any country is free to decide what it should do under that Resolution, but if it were possible for the United States Government to prove that we were violating the Battle Act in any way Her Majesty's Government's freedom of action would disappear, because we have accepted American military aid and would, therefore, no longer be able to claim that it was something which was left to our responsibility under the United Nations Resolution.
I want to say a word about the significance of these Orders. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has gone into this question at great length. Their significance is twofold. First, the Minister of Transport who has signed them and not the President of the Board of Trade. That is a very significant thing. If I may use a parallel, if one wants to alter the route of a bus one talks to the driver of the bus, and if one wants to control the type of passengers carried one speaks to the conductor. Up to now our policy towards China has been in respect of goods carried, and previous Orders have been signed by the President of the Board of Trade—the bus conductor, but now we get two Measures signed by the bus driver, if my parallel is a good one.
It obviously means that the Government are taking powers—whether they intend to use them or not is a matter into which I do not want to go now— which give them the right, without coming to this House again, to impose a total blockade on China. I am quite prepared to accept any assurances from the

Government in regard to this matter. But a House of Commons matter is involved here. The purpose of Statutory Rules and Orders is to give the House of Commons an opportunity to consider a change of policy as it is to be implemented by a Statutory Order.
If the Government take powers sooner than they need them it means we are discussing a change of policy a long way before it has occurred. If I were to make a great speech against a blockade the Minister would say, "The hon. Gentleman opposite is wasting his time; we do not intend to enforce a blockade." But this is the last chance I have to make a speech against a blockade, because of the nature of this Order. This is a House of Commons matter. I cannot expect any satisfaction about it, but if the Government have any respect for the House of Commons they should limit themselves to taking the powers which are necessary in the light of the policy they intend to pursue, and they should not take greater powers sooner than they need them.
I want to say one word about the policy of restricting trade to China, but I do not want to go into figures or bore the House at this late hour. Ceylon, who is not a member of the United Nations and has never accepted the embargo, has been trading a great deal with China in rubber. We have seen Western Germany doing a great trade with China in antibiotics, which British manufacturers have been unable to do because of the policy of embargo, and we have seen the Japanese engaged in a terrific exchange of Chinese coal for textile machinery and fertilisers. The effect of the embargo has been to tie China still more tightly, economically, to the Eastern bloc—the Soviet Union and her satellites. It is very arguable whether there has really been any economic or political advantage from so rigid a policy as has been pursued.
Will the Minister give an assurance on one point? I went to another place today. I believe it is permissible to quote from a speech by a Government spokesman in another place and, although I cannot quote it because it has not yet appeared in HANSARD, I should like to paraphrase it. Lord Mancroft, speaking on the same subject, gave an assurance that the restrictions on trade with China


were imposed because of her warlike activities, and that he, speaking for the Government, could not see that those restrictions could continue if those warlike activities came to an end. Are we to understand that when a truce is signed we no longer hold ourselves bound by the United Nations Resolution?
This is particularly important for the reason that, as I stressed when I was talking about the background to this subject, the British Government accepted the recommendations of the Additional Measures Committee only because the Good Offices Committee failed to produce any result. If we used the same terms today we should find that the Good Offices Committee would, if it were still sitting, have good news to give us, because it would be concerned with the truce negotiations. Then we find a situation in which, if the war comes to an end —and who does not hope that a truce will be signed shortly—the aggressor Resolution really lapses. Therefore, the U.N. Resolution embodying the embargo lapses.
If the Government can give an undertaking similar to that given by Lord Mancroft in another place it will go a long way to relieve the anxieties of many of us who do not like the Order and think that it is based on a misunderstanding of good Anglo-American relations and who hope that, were the Order passed tonight, it would lapse as soon as peace is signed.

11.6 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Nutting): I should like first to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) for the temperate manner in which he raised this matter tonight. As he has said, there are difficult and delicate negotiations going on in Korea, and none of us wants to say anything which may hamper them. The scope of this Order tonight is, on the whole, a narrow one. But, before I deal with the Order, let me assure the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members who have spoken in this debate who are anxious about this aspect of the matter that there has been no extension of or change in Her Majesty's Government's policy. No blockade is envisaged, or foreshadowed, in the Order. There is merely an extension of power which the

Government already possesses to prohibit and control the export of strategic goods to China and to North Korea.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) asked about the width of the Order, and why it had to be drawn so wide. I had the same thought when I read the Order. The explanation is complicated, and I hope the hon. Member will allow me to give it. The difficulty arises from the Defence Regulation under which this Order is made. The Regulation in question, Defence Regulation 46, deals only with the port of origin. It does not permit an Order made under it to prohibit arrivals at any given destination. The destination can only be controlled by attaching a condition to a licence under the Order. That is entirely because of the way Defence Regulation 46 is drafted.
The Order therefore does not say that ships may not go to China; on the other hand, it does say that ships may not go anywhere without a licence. The general licence which is made under the Order modifies this by permitting those ships to go anywhere except China. The general licence adds the condition that they may not divert from a permitted voyage to China. It is in order to avoid a ship proceeding to an innocent destination and from that destination proceeding onwards with a strategic cargo to China that this complicated and rather wide power has had to be taken.
I will deal briefly with two things. The first is what the Order does, and what it does not do. First of all as to what it does. The House will recall, as the right hon. Gentleman recalled, the United Nations Resolution passed on 18th May, 1951. Let me remind the House of the recommendations of that Resolution. They were to:
(a) Apply an embargo on the shipment to areas under the control of the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China and of the North Korean authorities of arms, ammunition and implements of war, atomic energy materials, petroleum, transportation materials of strategic value, and items useful in the production of arms, ammunition and implements of war; …
(c) Prevent by all means within its jurisdiction the circumvention of controls on shipments applied by other States pursuant to the present resolution;
I want to draw the attention of the House to the particular passage "to prevent the circumvention of controls",


because I believe that this passage is particularly relevant to the Order we are discussing.
As the House knows, both the late Government and the present Government have fulfilled their obligations under this Resolution. On the other hand, until this Order came into effect on 31st March there had been a loophole. Now, admittedly only a small amount of traffic has so far passed through this loophole. In 1951 there were two isolated cases, the case of the "Nancy Moller," familiar to hon. Gentlemen opposite, for it was their Government which had to order a British destroyer to head off the ship and take her to a British port because she was carrying a strategic material, rubber, to China. In the last quarter of 1952 there were three "guilty" voyages, and early this year there has been one. That is four over a period of something like five months, and although the increase is very small, there has been this slight increase.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me what goods have slipped through in these ships. I have not got the tonnage figures, although I can obtain them if he wants them, but the goods were mainly iron and steel goods and rubber. He also asked me what foreign ships which have been carrying strategic cargoes to China have been bunkered in British ports. This is now prohibited under the new regulations. The number of foreign ships bunkered in British ports in 1952 was of the order of a dozen. They were bunkered mainly at Aden and Singapore.
All this may seem rather small beer, but the point is that it could become a serious abuse if we were not to take these extra powers to block this loophole. What is more, we are bound under the U.N. Resolution, which states that we must not only prohibit the export of strategic materials but also prevent any circumvention of our regulations. For instance, without this control it could be possible for a British ship to call at a Communist port and there to load a cargo of arms or other strategic materials and carry it direct to Communist China, for there was no control under the Defence Regulation or the previous Export Control Regulation to prohibit that.
The Government therefore felt that to permit this would not only be an

anomaly, but that it would not be in accordance with the letter or the spirit of the United Nations Resolution. They therefore decided to take steps to tighten up their controls of strategic exports, and it is really absolute nonsense for the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn. East (Mrs. Castle) to suggest that we did this as a result of any pressure from the United States or the United States Government on the Foreign Secretary when he was in Washington on his last visit. In point of fact, if the hon. Lady wants to know, this decision was taken by Her Majesty's Government before the Foreign Secretary left for Washington and it was communicated by him to the United States Government when he was in Washington; and in a communiqué issued on 7th March it was announced that we had decided to introduce this system of licensing voyages by British vessels trading with China.

Mrs. Castle: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that in answering Questions on this in the House the Foreign Secretary agreed that the practical effect of this Order in reducing trade with China would, in his own words, not be
at all large, but it is a fact that in many American minds it bulks very large"?— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1953: Vol. 513, c. 31.]
In other words, it was American psychology he was considering, not the practical need for the Order.

Mr. Nutting: Just because a decision by Her Majesty's Government happens to be welcome to the United States Government, there is no reason to suppose or to suggest that it was taken as a result of pressure from the United States Government.
The general effect of the voyage licensing control Order and the General Licence issued under it is that since 31st March no United Kingdom or colonial ship of over 500 tons can go to China or to North Korea without a special licence. This special licence specifies that no strategic goods shall be carried to China or North Korea, and a list of strategic goods which cannot be so carried is attached to the special licence so that anyone applying for it will know precisely what he is not entitled to carry. This covers all vessels, wherever they start, and means, in effect, that any British ship carrying strategic goods to


China would expose the owners and master to prosecution.
Now let me say what this Order does not do, because there has been some doubt and fear and anxiety expressed on this point in the House tonight. It does not hamper the carriage in British ships of non-strategic goods. It does not add to the list of goods whose export to China from the United Kingdom or the Colonies is already subject to embargo. It does not add any item to that list. It does not imply that we are stepping into a new field of control in trade with China. It does not involve a blockade. As my right hon. Friend said in answer to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) on 18th March:
Until the hon. Gentleman suggested it, I had not seen any suggestion that we were sliding into any sort of naval blockade. I made it quite clear in my public statement in the United States …that this is not a new policy. It is strictly a fulfilment of a policy which we are obliged to carry out by the United Nations Resolution of May, 1951, which the late Government agreed to."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1953: Vol. 513, c. 31.]
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne has said tonight that he wants an expansion of trade with China, but that he recognised that war conditions applied in respect of the export of strategic goods. I have absolutely no quarrel with him at all; I, too, want an expansion of trade in non-strategic goods with China; but I cannot, and Her Majesty's Government cannot, agree to sanction any export of strategic materials, still less to withdraw this Order.
As those who are familiar with these matters know, we are carrying on an important trade in such non-strategic goods as chemical fertilisers, wool tops, wool yarns and cloth, and textile machinery. There is nothing in the Order we are now discussing, nor in any earlier regulation governing trade with China, nor in the United Nations Resolution itself, which prohibits a continuation of this trade in non-strategic materials.
It may be argued—and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne did argue, or appeared to argue—that by taking these extended powers the Government are imposing upon this country a burden and a self-denying ordinance which is not altogether shared by others. Well, it is, of course, true that when the United Nations drew up their

Resolution in 1951 they did not prescribe the methods of its execution or the list of strategic goods whose export to China should be prohibited. It was left, on the contrary, to each country which sponsored the Resolution to work out its own methods and its own lists. In fact, there are several countries, including the United States and Canada, whose embargo lists are more extensive than our own. In other countries, shipping controls are more severe, as, for instance, Honduras, Panama and Greece. We, of course, continue to review our policy and there are frequent discussions between this country and other friendly countries, especially the major maritime and trading nations concerned.
I have been asked whether we would review this policy should an armistice-prove possible in Korea. The answer is that, of course, should an armistice prove possible in Korea, the situation under which the United Nations Resolution arose would be altered and therefore the policy of all the nations concerned would naturally and immediately come under review.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) asked me about Hong Kong. He produced some figures for trade between Hong Kong and China which, he alleged, represented trade in strategic materials, including rubber. All I can say, in answer to him, is that I have no knowledge of any strategic goods going from Hong Kong to the mainland of China. On the contrary, as far as I am aware, Hong Kong operates the same embargo list as the United Kingdom and controls cargo transhipments in the same way as we do. It controls all goods in transit except those which are consigned from outside direct to China and do not pass through any Hong Kong agent in the process.
From any information I have, or any which has been passed to me by the Colonial Office, I do not think there is any significant leak in this trade with Hong Kong, but, of course, we cannot be 100 per cent. certain that there will not be some leak somewhere. Unless we have full war conditions, involving a naval blockade, we can never be 100 per cent. certain. What we have done is to make it as certain as possible.
Considering the degree and delicacy of this problem, I think a surprising degree of unanimity has been achieved among the United Nations in implementing this policy, saving always of course, the Soviet bloc. Consultations on the measures which we are now discussing are now in progress with other countries, both on the control of voyages and on bunkering. The French Government have announced that they intend to take measures to prevent the transport of strategic goods to China in French ships and also to prohibit the bunkering of ships going to China with strategic cargoes. France is therefore acting in line with ourselves.
The right hon. Member for South Shields asked me about the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth can, of course, take their own line. The Commonwealth are in no way bound, except in as far as they are morally bound, by the terms of the United Nations Resolution. Ceylon, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, is not operating these controls and is trading in rubber with China. Of course, Ceylon is not a member of the United Nations. Canada is introducing voyage licensing control in the same way as we are. The Greeks have announced that Greek ships will be prohibited from 17th March from calling at all ports controlled by the Central People's Government and the ports of North Korea.
In conclusion, my last wish would be to say anything in this debate which might in any way prejudice the negotiations which have now been re-started at Panmunjom, but in considering this Order there are three facts which must be borne in mind and which I ask the House to bear in mind. The first is that, unhappily, fighting is still going on in Korea, and in that fighting United Nations Forces are involved, including British and British Commonwealth troops. Secondly, Communist China and North Korea stand condemned by the United Nations of acts of aggression, and theirs are the forces which for the last two-and-a-half years have been, and still are, shooting, killing and wounding our men and those of our United Nations allies. Thirdly, we must recall that Britain is pledged—pledged by the late Government; a pledge which we have accepted

and carried out—to carry out to the fullest possible extent the terms of the United Nations Resolution prohibiting the export of strategic goods to China and North Korea.
I do not think it is unreasonable or undesirable that this House should be asked to approve measures which are designed to prevent a British ship proceeding from any port from carrying materials and weapons which could be used directly or indirectly to shoot down our soldiers and their comrades in arms of the United Nations. I ask the House, therefore, to allow these Orders to go through, and I ask the Opposition, with that explanation which I think has answered the majority of the questions and the anxieties that have been expressed, to withdraw the Motion.

11.26 p.m.

Mr. Ede: This is the first time I can recall when every question I have asked has been answered by someone on the other side of the House and, may I say, so satisfactorily? I hope that the almost concluding words of the hon. Gentleman will not have been spoken in vain. I do not think that anything has been said in the course of this debate which should hamper the negotiations that are now going on. It is the earnest wish of all of us that those negotiations should be ultimately successful. We may have an opportunity of dealing with some of the issues that have been raised in the Foreign Affairs debate, whenever that may take place. Therefore, while thanking the hon. Gentleman for the clarity and frankness of the answers he has given us. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Speaker: I take it that it is not desired to move the second Motion?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir.

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION, NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Edward Heath.]

11.27 p.m.

Mr. Harold Davies: After such a vital debate as that of East-West trade and China, this may seem a trifling matter to raise. I merely want to draw the attention of the House and the Minister to a purely local problem, but it is fitting that this House should be used sometimes in that way.
I have in my constituency the problem of a lack of school buildings and about two weeks ago I asked questions about the position. I was told by the Minister on 2nd April that two new schools had been built in Newcastle-under-Lyme, a primary school and, apparently, a secondary school, but that none had been built in Leek, Cheadle and Biddulph, although one has been completed in Biddulph since 1939 and one in Leek.
The schools that were completed in Biddulph and Leek were actually needed before 1938, and consequently they only took in the school population of that time. From a further question, I discovered that the school population has grown in the three towns in question from 7,650 pupils before the war, to 9,160 in January, 1953. The Minister said that 1,000 new places had been provided and that 300 additional places were now in the course of provision, but that leaves over 500 places in those three towns in the Leek Division without suitable school building accommodation.
Certain very important local problems and national problems arise out of this. North Staffordshire is a growing coalfield and the National Coal Board are bringing houses into the area, into the city of Stoke-on-Trent, which is adjacent to my division, into Newcastle-under-Lyme, which is contiguous, and into my own division. The first question I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to answer is whether there is a definite liaison, understanding and discussion between the Coal Board and the Minister of Education, when there is the intention of building in

the towns and villages on the borders of the coalfields of Britain, about the possibility of the future school population.
In Biddulph itself we have a problem of a boys' secondary school. They are running all round the town and even to the moorland above looking for rooms to house the school children. Some of this territory is bleak moorland in wintertime, and some of the buildings they are using are old chapels, old church rooms, and old Wesleyan schools which are either inadequate, or break up the spirit of the school. It is very difficult for headmasters and headmistresses to build up a sense of esprit de corps if the classrooms are scattered all round the district. At the moment, in the town of Biddulph three schools are sharing their classrooms and gymnasium, and trying to solve the problem of an overburdened school population. Then we have, in addition to this, the new miners' houses coming into the district. I desire the Minister completely to forget Newcastle-under-Lyme when he talks about the new schools, because the schools there do not help to solve the problem of Biddulph, Leek or Cheadle.
I beg of the Minister to look into the problem of the provision of school accommodation in the village of Weston Coyney on the borders of Cheadle. At the present moment the National Coal Board are building 400 houses. The rural district council are themselves building 200 houses, and 138 of these 200 houses have already been let, so that there will probably be an influx of 480 children to the primary school and there may be 200 more to the secondary school from Weston Coyney in the near future.
Three miles away is the old village school of Caverswall, which is now a county primary school. It is the nearest school to Weston Coyney and is completely inadequate for the modern population which has grown up in that village. It is due to the need of the rural district of Cheadle to find land on which to build their houses and the fact that the coalfield in North Staffordshire is growing.
I understand that there has been approval of the building programme for 1953–54 by the Minister of Education. That approval was given before the proposals of the National Coal Board


became known. I also understand—and the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that the Ministry of Education are fully aware of the exceptional nature of this problem in these two villages. If I were to talk around that point I would be befogging the issue, and I could not put it any further if I spoke for hours on the subject instead of being brief.
I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be able to give me some assurance that this part of my constituency is getting top level attention from the Ministry of Education, and that the Ministry are taking every step possible to help a very harassed director of education in North Staffordshire, who has been concerned with this problem for some time.
If the Parliamentary Secretary speaks of finance, I hope that he will refer to the answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the House on 2nd April last. He told the House that in the year 1873–74, 3 per cent. of the Government's total expenditure was spent on education. In 1913–14, 9.7 per cent. of the Government's expenditure was on education, but in the year 1953–54, it has dropped to 6.4 per cent. That is a retrograde step.
I do not want the Parliamentary Secretary's answer to be based on financial stringency. I believe that if we fail now to give children milk—and I am speaking metaphorically—it cannot be made up to them by stuffing them with cream 10 years hence. It is essential that we get an education system in Britain that will give the British people that commonsense for which they have been noted for centuries. It would be penny wise and pound foolish for any Government, whatever their political complexion may be. to neglect primary education, which, after all, is the basis of the pyramid of Britain's greatness.

11.38 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Swingler: I rise for two minutes to support my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies). In some answers to questions put by my hon. Friend, I noticed that the Parliamentary Secretary referred to the position in Newcastle-under-Lyme, which I represent. I want to tell the House that the schools at present under construction in my constituency will not help my hon. Friend's constituency. In Newcastle-under-Lyme,

we are in a position of being behind in our provision of school accommodation, and we are appalled at the prospect that no provision has been made or approved by the Minister for the new schools to be started in Newcastle-under-Lyme itself in the coming year.
Our case in North Staffordshire is based on three points. In the first place, we have always been behind in the provision of school accommodation, and we are still behind. Secondly, we have been badly affected, particularly in primary education, by the cut made last year. The original 1951–53 allocation was the provision of 3,840 primary places, but this figure was cut to 2,760; that is, more than a thousand primary places taken from the 1951–53 Staffordshire school building programme. Now we have the situation where we have agreed to the extension of the North Staffordshire coalfield and the influx of more than 3,000 miners and their families for work in the district.
In view of these facts, will not the Parliamentary Secretary reconsider the projected programme of school building in North Staffordshire again for next year and say he is prepared to add these projects required, at any rate to accommodate the children of the miners coming into North Staffordshire?

11.44 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Kenneth Pickthorn): I should like first to refer to one or two general points and then go through the remarks of the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) and deal with the details which have been mentioned tonight. It is difficult, even when hon. Members have been so kind in giving notice as was the hon. Gentleman, and when one's case is put in such moderate language as he has used, to deal with specific cases and to give exact figures in relation to them. However. I do beg the hon. Gentleman who opened this debate to believe that I do not consider this to be a trifling matter; nor should I if it were a purely local problem. With all respect to his language, however, I do not think it can be regarded as a purely local problem, in the sense that one can afford to neglect other local problems of a different kind, but affecting this one.
From my own constituency circumstances I have some reason for appreciating the point he made about the movement of a considerable proportion of miners. He asked whether there is a definite liaison between the Coal Industry Housing Association—I will call it the Association for the rest of my remarks— and the Ministry, and the local education authorities: I can tell him that there is liaison of a sort which I would say is definite; and which, I hope, is effective. It is something too, which we have tried to keep an eye upon, and we will, without criticising what any of these three parties have already done, always try to see that they are conscious of the necessity for giving information to each other.
I can sympathise with the gentleman referred to as the much harassed director of education, and while I cannot tonight spend much time on the point, I do beg the hon. Member to believe me when I say that this is not a financial question. If it were, I do not think that I could accept some of his assumptions: the assumption about percentages is not a sound argument, and in following it one would clearly get into logical difficulties. But it is not a financial problem; it is a question of the actual amount of resources in labour and materials which we find it possible to allot to education and which those responsible for education find it possible to allot to a particular county. It is a matter of actual men, and actual goods, and I hope the hon. Member will believe that to be true, as I am sure it is.
I will leave out the remarks which I would have made about the general situation, and come to the particular problem of North Staffordshire. The houses erected by the Association are over and above the normal allocation to the local housing authority. Secondly, they are generally built quickly, for various reasons into which we need not go now, taking not more than eight or nine months. The programme is large and is carried out speedily.
However close my right hon. Friend may keep the liaison between the parties concerned, the probable dates of completion can hardly ever, if ever, be known in time for schools to be completed by the same date. Schools take a good deal longer to build—three or four times as long to build as these nine-month houses

—and it is not possible for the local education authority to get the sites and complete the plans for schools until it is sure the Association is going to build x houses in a particular spot. Even then it is not easy for the L.E.A. to know how many children x houses may mean. We can get a kind of rule of thumb in the normal business of decanting people out of London into an L.C.C. estate, but it is a different matter when we are not sure how many are going to be new families from outside and how many are going to move inside the authority's own borders.
Next, almost invariably—and the hon. Member will forgive me if he can correct me from his local knowledge—the Association's estates are built, as it were, in the jungle, a long way from very large villages. If there is an existing school handy, it is apt to be a small village school and nothing more.
Those are the reasons for the difficulty which we must all face; hon. Members opposite will have the candour to say that all these reasons would exist whoever was in charge. If my right hon. Friend places an additional school on a building programme, that in itself does not provide the necessary places at the most desirable time, not even when the local education authority has been able to be advanced in its plan so that building can be begun at once.
If I may read one sentence which I have written out, my right hon. Friend is fully conscious that exceptional factors in increasing the need for school places must receive exceptional consideration. She will try to see that any building project so exceptionally justified is not delayed by a failure to place it on a building programme.

Mr. Harold Davies: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I should not have taken the trouble to raise this issue again if it were not exceptional.

Mr. Pickthorn: I am sure we are in agreement here. I am saying what can be done in exceptional cases—these are exceptional cases—and that my right hon. Friend will see that in a case exceptionally justified, a building project is not delayed by failure—I do not use the word failure in any way to criticise the L.E.A.—to place it upon a building programme, provided that the L.E.A. can demonstrate


that now putting it exceptionally on the programme, putting it on the programme after the bus has left the queue, will be a reality. Obviously it is no use our merely lengthening the paper programme. I am sure hon. Members would not wish us to do that.
May I turn to Weston Coyney. It is an example of what I have indicated. Without disrespect to that undoubtedly agreeable and salubrious spot, I am informed it is barely a hamlet, a small collection of houses, near a crossroads. The neighbouring collieries are among those selected to receive miners. The Association is putting up some 400 houses, the rural district council some 200 houses, and there will probably be more building by private enterprise.
At this stage it is very difficult to estimate the number of school places, but I think the hon. Gentleman referred to some 480 more primary school places and 320 more secondary school places, and I am prepared to accept that estimate as being as good as can be made. The primary school children at present go to Cavers-wall School or schools in Stoke-on-Trent. Everybody is already overcrowded. Stoke-on-Trent L.E.A. have told Staffordshire that they will in future be unable to accept children from Weston Coyney because they have serious difficulties of their own. Senior children go to a secondary school at Cellarhead, where there is some room to spare.
With regard to school building proposals for Weston Coyney, there is no doubt that a new primary school would be the right thing and that one must be built. My right hon. Friend agrees that exceptional treatment is merited, and the only question is when it can be begun. The L.E.A. had not been informed by the Association—I do not say that either of them are to blame—about the new housing estate when the 1953–54 building programme was drawn up. This, however, is the time of year when the new programme is being drawn up, and it happens by pure coincidence that the gentleman in the Ministry who is concerned particularly with Staffordshire was, quite independently of the hon. Gentleman's question, visiting down there recently, and he will be visiting again quite soon.
Accordingly, the school not having yet been added to the programme, the L.E.A. have not yet done anything about acquiring a site or drawing up plans. Not only is the director harassed but, what necessarily follows, the architectural department is overburdened, so one cannot expect all that to be done in 48 hours. We have quite recently asked to be informed at once of the date by which they think they could make a start and if, in reply, they indicate a date which is considerably before 1st April, 1954, my right hon. Friend is prepared to add the school to the current building programme, although it is coming in late.
If the school cannot be begun much before 1st April, 1954, there is no point in doing that, but it would certainly be placed on the 1954–55 programme. As the new houses are likely to be completed by April, 1954, it is evident that there must be, in any case, an interval of some months at the very best, and it may be 12 months, or rather more, before the school is ready. That is plainly so: unless we get an Aladdin's lamp nobody can help that. The L.E.A. are therefore still under the compulsion of finding temporary accommodation and at present they are scratching round as best they can to find places either in existing schools or in buildings which can for a short period be extemporised for school purposes.
With regard to secondary school proposals, the secondary school at Cellarhead has room enough to deal with the influx of miners' children for the time being. At present it provides for what is rather horribly called two streams, and the Authority have now suggested, as part of their proposals for 1954–55, that it should be enlarged to take at least five streams. My right hon. Friend will be considering this proposal, along with the others which have been put to her, before the thing becomes an official programme. The need for senior places is not so immediate and pressing as for junior places, but she will not allow those needs to be overlooked.
In Biddulph the Association has begun an estate of 350 houses, and has applied for permission to erect another 150. The local authority is erecting 200 houses, and has another 160 to build. That is a total of 860, which is a quite considerable community. Again, there will be


more building by private enterprise. The local education authority estimates that some of the houses will be housing people from within its own bailiwick, and reckons that there will be about 350 additional children of primary school age and perhaps 150 senior children. What is there to deal with this problem? There is Knypersley Primary School; there is a new secondary school for girls; there are also, legally speaking, three other schools—because, legally and administratively, they are three separate schools, although they are in fact in a continuous building—for infants, juniors and senior boys.
I agree with the hon. Member for Leek who, I am sure, most faithfully represents his constituents in this matter, that the most satisfactory long-term solution of the problem is to erect a new boys' secondary school. This would allow the

seven teaching spaces now occupied by the boys to be used by children of primary school age. The local education authority has pressed for the inclusion of this project in their 1954–55 building programme. The programme has not yet been settled and, although the case for building a secondary school is a strong one, I cannot say at this stage that my right hon. Friend will be able to include it in the 1954–55 programme. It would not be right for me at this stage to announce what the answer will be; I do not think the local education authority would like me to do that.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Three Minutes to Twelve o'Clock.